[Bug 1896] libX11 support for pt_BR

[Alex Deucher]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:13:00 +0100, Roland Mainz
<roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> wrote:
> Alex Deucher wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:50:25 +0100, Roland Mainz
> > <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> wrote:
> > > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 10:47 -0800, bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Uhm... daniel... are you aware that patches which should go into the X11R6.8.x
> > > > > branch have to be
> > > > > 1. Reviewed
> > > > > 2. Commited to the Xorg CVS trunk
> > > > > and then, finally
> > > > > 3. Requested approval for X11R6.8.x
> > > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  If you know of a better method other than Bugzilla with which to
> > > > seek review, please let me know
> > >
> > > Yeah, the "Xprint" product in freedestkop.org's bugzilla has a "review?"
> > > flag for such purposes. A while ago I've asked around whether there is
> > > any interest to enable that flag for the "Xorg" bugzilla product, too -
> > > but there was no consens which method Xorg should use (simple {
> > > "review?" }, { "first-review?", "second-review?" } or { "review?" and
> > > "superreview?" } - that are the three most common methods (ignoring the
> > > "approval-*"-stuff which is more a management thing than a technical
> > > review)).
> > > A quick workaround may be to just enable the "review?" flag for the Xorg
> > > component to get patches reviewed on demand... I can do that with a new
> > > clicks but I think at least one of the XOrg directors should sign this
> > > change off...
> > >
> > > > -- I'm seeking to roll all three into
> > > > one, effectively.
> > >
> > > Oh my g*d... ;-(
> > >
> > > Effectively this causes confusion as there is now zero control over
> > > which patches have already been put into Xorg trunk and which not -
> > > which is usually a requirement _before_ people should start asking
> > > approval for the patches... ;-/
> > >
> > > > Already, this method has uncovered a problem, so it
> > > > seems it isn't working too badly ...
> > >
> > > Erm, it was just working for _one_ case (of now a few dozend patches)
> > > because I have to go througth all the patches for which approval is
> > > being requested... but I am not an expert for all the code and I doubt
> > > I'll catch everything...
> > >
> >
> > I dare say many (most?) of the patches requested for 6.8.2 have not
> > yet been applied to the trunk yet.  I can commit many of the ones for
> > the components I know, but I don't have time to heavily review all the
> > patches, so if a patch looks good please say so on the bug report.
> 
> Erm... which patches are that (except those from Daniel Stone - which
> seems to miss more or less all requirements needed to obtain approval
> for X1R6.8.x (and yes, I am ANGRY about this misuse of the approval flag
> system)) - could you please make a list ? Until now I thought all
> patches which are approved for X11R6.8.x are commited to "trunk", too
> (this applies AFAIK to all of my patches and most of the patches I can
> think about).
> 

I haven't really followed all the 6.8.2 bugs that closely unless they
impact a component I work on regularly; the various radeon related
ones (1559, 1306) come to mind.

Other possiblitites (may have been committed, don't know; there
doesn't seem to be any confirmation that they are on HEAD, possibly
they are...):
758
1361
1459
1695
1816
1824
1825-8
1835
1842

Perhaps those responsible for these could follow up.  If they are my
apologies to all for causing a stir.

Alex

> ----
> 
> Bye,
> Roland
> 
> --
>   __ .  . __
> 
> 
>  (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
>   \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
>   /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
>  (;O/ \/ \O;)