You are such an IDIOT!
If i wanted to see my copyright in the file i could add it to each file i
touch, like you do.
I was just saying that it was bad to base a new file on a old one, copying
blocks of the old one into the new one (or rewriting them - at the end one
sees its the same code with different syntax), then remove the original
authors copyright (dwelch), add his own name, svn delete the old file and add
the new file instead of moving and keeping all copytrights in the
file/history.
You said you didnt know who wrote the FPU code (after i said that i have
written it and noone can see that because of the deleted history), but you
would have had to assume that it was written by dwelch if thats the only name
in the file (and add his name to the new file) or simply keep the history of
the file so everyone can see which part was written by whom.
So the file said it was written by dwelch, while the history showed that it
was written by me (i didnt want to add my copyright into the file, knowing
that people can see from the history that i have written it was enough
satisfaction) - and now the history is gone and the file leaves the
impression that everything was written 100% by you.
IMO we should try to take care of others copyright (even if you dont like
them)
I never asked you to add my copyright back to the file, and you would also
have to add david welch again (and all the others from the old history which
worked on the file), no only me!
ekohl(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>Don't redefine ANSI_STRING, UNICODE_STRING and OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES if the NDK already defines them.
>
>
>Updated files:
>trunk/reactos/w32api/include/ntsecapi.h
>
>_________
>
Hi Eric,
Unforunately, we don't have the liberty to do this, since the real PSDK
file doesn't, and MS Header compatibility is a goal. The NDK must always
follow ntsecapi.h.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Hi,
I am currently working to convert win32k to NDK, which is the final
component still using the old headers. This creates a lot of conflicts
and issues between trunk and my local changes, and I'm trying to commit
them bit-by-bit instead of a gigantic patch. As such, unfortunately,
HEAD revision will be broken for another 30 minutes. These should be the
last large header changes, and trunk will be stabilzed after the next
one or two patches. Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Hi!
Make clean, svn up and make, DBG = 1 KDBG = 0,
[CC] drivers/video/videoprt/int10.c
In file included from drivers/video/videoprt/int10.c:25:
ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:56: error: syntax error before "KTRAP_FRAME"
ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:56: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union
ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: error: syntax error before '}' token
ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of
`KV86M_TRAP_FRAME'
ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of
`PKV86M_TRAP_FRAME'
ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
make: *** [obj-i386/drivers/video/videoprt/int10.o] Error 1
I noticed the #ifndef __ASM__ was removed from v86m.h.
Thanks,
James
ekohl(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>Fix indentation, remove trailing whitespace and sort prototypes.
>
>
>
>
Hi Eric,
Thanks a lot, this takes off one of the things which I was planning to
do once everything is finalized!
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Currently, the "Initial Owner" of bug reports is set based on the component
selected in the bug report. Most of the components still have Vizzini as the
initial owner. Since he left the project, that doesn't make much sense
anymore.
I'd like to change all initial owners to "ros-bugs(a)reactos.com", a new
mailing list. Subscribers to that list would then get notifications of new
bug submissions. This type of setup seems to work for a lot of open source
projects.
If there are no objections I'll create the list and switch Bugzilla on
Thursday.
Gé van Geldorp.
jakov(a)vmlinux.org wrote:
>
>
> Why not release every other month... it's not nonsensical.
> It's agile.
>
> If no big changes: 0.2.6.1
>
> If big bugfixes: 0.2.7
>
> If important features: 0.3
>
I think this is a very good idea.
Who am I? Well I guess I'm what you could call a typical reactos 'user' in that I occaisionally download the latest releases to see how things are progressing.
Personally, I know that there is progress being made but only because I follow this list, but I'm sure there are plenty of others who don't and just check the site for a new release every now and then (or subscribe to the freshmeat release notices etc).
Now, I agree with other comments that if a new release (either 0.3 or 0.2.7) comes out and there are no immediately visible improvements to the user then it could cause trust issues. And on the other hand if there aren't any releases for a while then it looks from the outside like the project is stagnating.
Which is why I think the above idea is a good one - if I've downloaded 0.2.6 in the past and a 0.2.6.1 comes out 2 months later, then I know not to expect too many noticable changes, but it indicates to me that there is at least progress behind the scenes. And when the 0.2.7 comes out I should expect some new features around but nothing breathtakingly new. And when 0.3 came out I'd be hitting the download ASAP to see what major new developments are now afoot. So I think with the regular interval releases, but making sure they are marked to indicate what sort of release they are, means everyone knows where they stand.
Cheers
Derek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
When I hover over the start menu item "Administration" ROS crashes and
goes to the "You can switch of the computer now" screen. The debugger
isn't started.
How to get more information here?
I'm using current SVN in qemu 0.7.0.
Greetings,
Jan Schiefer!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCu+pUzC00UKXFdVcRAlh/AJ9Ps7yJIvjjV1/oDkN2HkI/Q38zcQCcC3nQ
J80ijeO5Yinqs2TaUlt2Zmc=
=qFD6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6/24/05, art yerkes <ayerkes(a)perpetual.com> wrote:
> If the structure appears in the DDK headers, you should consider it to
> be in use by drivers, even if it's accompanied by a note saying that
> the structure is internal and will change. Driver writers tend to
> ignore such warnings.
You have a point, but I checked their DDK and it's not described there
(it's an alias for PVOID in their DDK). Its members appear only in our
DDK.
I've been snooping a little through their ndis.sys and it seems that
their structure has some extra members, like pointers to lists of used
packets and stuff like that. I guess it's safe then to add a few
variables to help in the implementation.
I also saw another interesting thing: the MS ndis.sys doesn't have all
the functions listed in the DDK. A few of them are declared as exports
but not implemented.
Best regards,
Andrei Homescu