[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c
From: |
Behdad Esfahbod |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:50:17 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 |
On 13-01-12 01:45 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> From: Behdad Esfahbod <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:36:48 -0600
>
>> On 13-01-11 02:02 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> Not yet, sorry. IMHO the first step for the next release is to
>>> comment out the line
>>>
>>> #define FT_CONFIG_OPTION_OLD_INTERNALS
>>>
>>> in `ftoption.h' so that the old internals are still available but no
>>> longer activated by default. I've done that right now.
>>
>> Did you push it to master? I don't see.
>
> Yes, it's the last commit, e4ecce3.
I see:
commit 3af607b07d8ac4014c2d6be93ac518a349500dc4
Author: Werner Lemberg <address@hidden>
Date: Sun Nov 4 17:25:29 2012 +0100
Improve documentation of Unicode IVS handling.
Did you git-push?
--
behdad
http://behdad.org/
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, (continued)
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, David Turner, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c,
Behdad Esfahbod <=
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12