Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdi32: Add support for emulating bold faces of bitmap fonts. Take 2. Resend.
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
Any chance for at least a comment?
You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, you still haven't done that AFAICS. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Any chance for at least a comment?
You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, you still haven't done that AFAICS.
That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests, and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with different font sizes) works just fine with current approach. Besides, status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation. -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Any chance for at least a comment?
You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, you still haven't done that AFAICS.
That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests, and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with different font sizes) works just fine with current approach.
Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed that Windows messes them up the same way?
Besides, status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation.
What has this got to do with anything? If your patch receives comments you have to address them, I'm not going to review it if someone else already did. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, you still haven't done that AFAICS.
That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests, and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with different font sizes) works just fine with current approach.
Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed that Windows messes them up the same way?
What I have done is a comparison of screenshots of the affected application produced under Windows and Wine. If there will be a need in futher improvements I'll certainly have a look what can be enhanced.
Besides, status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation.
What has this got to do with anything? If your patch receives comments you have to address them, I'm not going to review it if someone else already did.
Shouldn't the patch status reflect that? Or commenting on a patch automatically makes it rejected? What about the test sent as 1/2? It has got no comments. -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed that Windows messes them up the same way?
What I have done is a comparison of screenshots of the affected application produced under Windows and Wine. If there will be a need in futher improvements I'll certainly have a look what can be enhanced.
Once again, have you explicitly tested 32-pixel wide characters? Obviously other sizes won't show the problem.
Besides, status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation.
What has this got to do with anything? If your patch receives comments you have to address them, I'm not going to review it if someone else already did.
Shouldn't the patch status reflect that? Or commenting on a patch automatically makes it rejected?
It may or may not, depending on how you address the comments. Usually it would become superseded once you send a fixed version. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
What I have done is a comparison of screenshots of the affected application produced under Windows and Wine. If there will be a need in futher improvements I'll certainly have a look what can be enhanced.
Once again, have you explicitly tested 32-pixel wide characters? Obviously other sizes won't show the problem.
No, I haven't specifically tested that case. I believe that I would have noticed a problem with the application I tested with.
Besides, status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation.
What has this got to do with anything? If your patch receives comments you have to address them, I'm not going to review it if someone else already did.
Shouldn't the patch status reflect that? Or commenting on a patch automatically makes it rejected?
It may or may not, depending on how you address the comments. Usually it would become superseded once you send a fixed version.
This clearly shows a lack of communication, which leads to dropping useful patches. Huw asked a question, I answered in belief that my response makes things clearer. Satus of the patch remained as 'New', which means "Patch not even looked at yet", 30 days have passed, the patch disappeared from the patch tracker. -- Dmitry.
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dmitry Timoshkov