Closed
Bug 263336
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Add keyboard searching of "stored cookies" and "site permissions" lists.
Categories
(Camino Graveyard :: Preferences, enhancement)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
Camino0.9
People
(Reporter: moz, Assigned: mikepinkerton)
References
Details
Attachments
(6 files, 14 obsolete files)
48.06 KB,
application/pdf
|
Details | |
84.42 KB,
application/pdf
|
Details | |
19.61 KB,
application/pdf
|
Details | |
141.77 KB,
image/tiff
|
Details | |
6.22 KB,
application/zip
|
Details | |
4.88 KB,
patch
|
mikepinkerton
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Keyboard searching (either "find as you type"/Finder-style or filtered via a search field) would be a useful addition to the "stored cookies" and "site permissions" lists (and other similarly long lists) in Camino's preferences.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → Camino0.9
The patch modifies the privacy preference pane component to add a SearchField at the bottom of the cookies permission sheet and at the bottom of the cookies edition sheet. The searchTextField also needed to be modified to send out a notification to the delegate when the text is changed.
Attachment #166945 -
Flags: review?(pinkerton)
Do we really want this? Comments? Olivier - please attach code patches and new nib files separately.
As it stands it's relatively easy to find specific cookies because you can sort the entries using the table headers. I remember that we discussed this addition on IRC and that we where sceptic because it was pretty hard not to make it to complicated. Our main concern was the result list, and how it would be displayed. But I think that if we placed the search field between the buttons at the bottom of the sheet. And made sure that the result list work as we wnat and that it's easy to escape from the result list I wouldn't see any harm in this feature. So the only way I see this happening is that it's ultra easy to understand and use.
The search box is located in between the done button and the remove button. Excaping a search is easy, just press the clear button. AS for locating cookies, whenever i need to change a permission on a cookie, it is not made easy by sorting because i have hundred of those, this allow to make the list much smaller and thus easier to handle (scrolling and all). Plus what if you remember the domain name but the cookie host does not start with it eg: www.internal.host.com. At this point it will take a while to locate it.
Attachment #166945 -
Flags: review?(pinkerton) → review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5) > Created an attachment (id=167196) > Archive of all the files modified > > Same as patch uploaded, but those are the actual files I downloaded the file, is it a gzip, tar, zip file ? I'll gladly do the review. One more thing you need to be aware of .nib files are *not* diffeable so If you patch requires a nib files change the procedure is as follow : attach a patch file. zip/gzip/stuff the modified nib file and attach it to the bug. Set the review flag on the patch file (no need to ask it for the nib files - if you provide a patch)
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > Do we really want this? Comments? > Yes. When You have many cookies it can be valuable to have this. I vote for.
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 166945 [details] [diff] [review] Includes the modification to the privacy prefPane >? camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/English.lproj/Privacy~.nib The above line should not be present in the attached patch file. remove it before attaching patches. >Index: camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/PrivacyPane.mm >=================================================================== >RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/PrivacyPane.mm,v >retrieving revision 1.25 >diff -u -F^f -r1.25 PrivacyPane.mm >--- camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/PrivacyPane.mm 20 Nov 2004 00:50:51 -0000 1.25 >+++ camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/PrivacyPane.mm 24 Nov 2004 18:40:00 -0000 >@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > #include "nsIURI.h" > #include "nsNetUtil.h" > #include "nsString.h" >+#include "STFPopUpButtonCell.h" > > > // prefs for keychain password autofill >@@ -240,6 +241,17 @@ > NSPopUpButtonCell *popupButtonCell = [mPermissionColumn dataCell]; > [popupButtonCell setEditable:YES]; > [popupButtonCell addItemsWithTitles:[NSArray arrayWithObjects:[self getLocalizedString:@"Allow"], [self getLocalizedString:@"Deny"], nil]]; >+ >+ //add the menu for the seach field in the cookie panes, steal the strings from the table itself >+ // >+ [[(SearchTextFieldCell*)[mCookiesFilterField cell] popUpButtonCell] addItemWithTitle: @"Search all"]; This is not Localizable, you should call getLocalizedString and should update mozilla/camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/English.lproj/Localizable.strings acordingly. Has for nib files the .strings files are *not* diffeable so it should ba attached to the bug separatly from the .nib file and the patch. >+ >+- (void)controlTextDidChange:(NSNotification *)aNotification >+{ >+ //find out if we are filtering the permission or the cookies >+ // >+ NSString *filterString = [[aNotification object] stringValue]; >+ >+ if (mCachedPermissions && mPermissionManager && ([aNotification object] == mPermissionFilterField)) >+ { >+ //this mean user wants to filter down the list of cookies >+ //reinitialize the list of permission in case user deleted a letter or replaced a letter >+ // >+ [self populatePermissionCache]; >+ >+ if (![filterString isEqualToString: @""]) >+ { >+ // remove from parallel array and cookie permissions list >+ int row = mCachedPermissions->Count() - 1; >+ for (row ; row>=0 ; row--) >+ { >+ nsCAutoString host; >+ mCachedPermissions->ObjectAt(row)->GetHost(host); >+ if ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: host.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) >+ mCachedPermissions->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ } >+ } >+ [mPermissionsTable deselectAll: self]; // don't want any traces of previous selection >+ [mPermissionsTable reloadData]; >+ } >+ else if (mCachedCookies && mCookieManager && ([aNotification object] == mCookiesFilterField)) >+ { >+ //this mean user wants to filter down the list of cookies >+ //reinitialize the list of permission in case user deleted a letter or replaced a letter >+ // No need to repeat the comment. >+ [self populateCookieCache]; >+ >+ if (![filterString isEqualToString: @""]) >+ { >+ // remove from parallel array and cookie permissions list >+ int row = mCachedCookies->Count() - 1; >+ for (row ; row>=0 ; row--) >+ { >+ nsCAutoString host, name, path, cookieVal; >+ PRUint64 expires = 0; These variables and "row" should be defined at the function level, not in the loop. >+ mCachedCookies->ObjectAt(row)->GetHost(host); >+ mCachedCookies->ObjectAt(row)->GetName(name); >+ mCachedCookies->ObjectAt(row)->GetPath(path); >+ >+ mCachedCookies->ObjectAt(row)->GetExpires(&expires); >+ NSString *dateString; >+ >+ if (expires == 0) >+ // if expires is 0, it's a session cookie; display as expiring on the current date. >+ // It's not perfect, but it's better than showing the epoch. >+ dateString = [[[[[mCookiesTable tableColumns] objectAtIndex: 4] dataCell] formatter] stringForObjectValue: [NSDate date]]; >+ else >+ dateString = [[[[[mCookiesTable tableColumns] objectAtIndex: 4] dataCell] formatter] stringForObjectValue: [NSDate dateWithTimeIntervalSince1970: (NSTimeInterval)expires]]; >+ >+ mCachedCookies->ObjectAt(row)->GetValue(cookieVal); >+ >+ >+ //see if the user selected something else than the "all" option >+ // >+ STFPopUpButtonCell *popupCell = [(SearchTextFieldCell*)[mCookiesFilterField cell] popUpButtonCell]; >+ switch ([popupCell indexOfItem: [popupCell selectedItem]]) >+ { >+ case 1: >+ if (([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: host.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) && >+ ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: name.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) && >+ ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: path.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) && >+ ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: cookieVal.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) && >+ ([dateString rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound)) >+ mCachedCookies->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ break; >+ case 2: >+ if ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: host.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) >+ mCachedCookies->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ break; >+ case 3: >+ if ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: name.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) >+ mCachedCookies->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ break; >+ case 4: >+ if ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: path.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) >+ mCachedCookies->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ break; >+ case 5: >+ { >+ //use the formatter of the column to be sure we have the same format >+ // >+ if ([dateString rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) >+ mCachedCookies->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ break; >+ } >+ case 6: >+ if ([[NSString stringWithUTF8String: cookieVal.get()] rangeOfString: filterString].location == NSNotFound) >+ mCachedCookies->RemoveObjectAt(row); >+ break; >+ Could you comment on case numbers what is 1,2, 3, etc ... ? >+ } >+ } >+ } >+ [mCookiesTable deselectAll: self]; // don't want any traces of previous selection >+ [mCookiesTable reloadData]; >+ } >+} >+ >+ >+- (void)cookiesSearchFieldCriteriaDidChange:(NSNotification *)aNotification >+{ >+ NSNotification *newNotification = [NSNotification notificationWithName: [aNotification name] >+ object: [[aNotification object] controlView]]; >+ [self controlTextDidChange: newNotification]; >+} > @end >Index: camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/English.lproj/Privacy.nib/classes.nib >=================================================================== >Index: camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/English.lproj/Privacy.nib/info.nib >=================================================================== >Index: camino/PreferencePanes/Privacy/English.lproj/Privacy.nib/objects.nib >=================================================================== .nib files need to be attached separetly. I have not tested the patch completly but it seems to work. I was confused when I set my first filter because I did not know what criteria where used to filter - seeing the word "all" in the criteria list at that momment might be a very good idea setiing r to -. You need to provide use with patch + nib + Localized.string, before I can do a new review. Also a screenshot would be nice for people not building wanting to comment on the feature.
Attachment #166945 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla) → review-
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #166945 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #167196 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #9) > (From update of attachment 166945 [details] [diff] [review]) > >+- (void)controlTextDidChange:(NSNotification *)aNotification > >+{ > >+ //find out if we are filtering the permission or the cookies > >+ // Also double check your tab settings and change this accordingly to mozilla's see http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/mozilla-style-guide.html
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #9) > I set my first filter because I did not know what criteria where used to filter > - seeing the word "all" in the criteria list at that momment might be a very > good idea The string could only be set to this if the search field is not the first responder. So the problem is that the string can be seen, but then the user has to click on the field before typing. If we leave the field as first responder, then the user can start typing right away. Personaly i vote for typing right away, the learning curve is not that steep, and this would benefit all subsequent use. comments?
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review+
Comment 17•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #16) > Created an attachment (id=167284) > patch file > Why did you r+ your own patch ?
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review+ → review?
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review? → review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 18•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > Created an attachment (id=167284) > > patch file > > > > Why did you r+ your own patch ? Sorry, i thought plus was for request, then i remember it is ? (by the way why don't they have full words in there rather than symbol?)
Comment 19•20 years ago
|
||
I don't think we should take this patch even if it worked. Seems like bloat to me. Pinkerton: what do you think? We should decide on this and either push the patch through or mark this WONTFIX. Obviously I vote the latter. No need for anyone to spend more time on a bug that won't we don't want to fix. As Jasper pointed out, you can use column sorting to find things quickly enough.
(In reply to comment #19) > As Jasper pointed out, you can use column sorting to find things quickly enough. The real-world counter-example to this (at least as far as the site permissions section goes): I have "Ask before accepting a cookie" set. Several times recently I've hit "deny" (and "remember") for a series of cookies from one site, only to find out that, bah, the site doesn't work without cookies. There's a cookie from login.site.com, www.site.com, something.site.com, etc., and I need to re-enable them all (or at least several of them) to get the site working and me logged in. Site permissions sorts (alpha) by first character, so I have to scroll through a very extensive list looking for all of my site.com permissions to set them to "allow"--or remove all my allow/deny setting. Searching, if I understand it correctly, would let me enter "site.com" and would filter all of my "site.com" entries. Similarly, if one wanted to delete all the cookies from site.com in the "Edit stored cookies" sheet, one currently has to scroll throuhg looking for every variation.site.com to do so. If you know every server.site.com, sorting works great; in the real world, the search would be really handy.
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
i thought i'd already weighed in here, i think this "feature" proabably desirable, it's a more advanced panel anyway and can *easily* get swamped with a huge # of cookies. Making things easier to find is a good thing in this situation. we should strive to keep it simple, but adding a search field don't overly complicate it. people are used to this paradigm now. if you totally disagree, grab me on irc and we can chat about it. I'd say move it above the list, though, not below it. it should be above, right justified (like all other search bars in the OS).
Comment 22•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 167284 [details] [diff] [review] patch file It works. I had this message when I applied the patch : File to patch: src/browser/SearchTextFieldCell.m patching file src/browser/SearchTextFieldCell.m patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line Hunk #1 succeeded at 262 with fuzz 1. but it built correctly.
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review?(jpellico)
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review+
Comment 23•20 years ago
|
||
Can someone help me get the new nib to build in the project? I've done all I can think of and when I build Camino there's no search fields.
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #23) > Can someone help me get the new nib to build in the project? I've done all I can > think of and when I build Camino there's no search fields. Put it in /Prepanes/Privacy/English.lproj then delete camino/build/* build its should work.
Comment 25•20 years ago
|
||
The search field works fine. However, why am I able to resize the sheet so that the field overlaps Done? I'll have to mark this r-.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #167284 -
Flags: review?(jpellico) → review-
Comment 26•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #167281 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: review?(jpellico)
Comment 27•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 168722 [details]
a new nib file with the sizing of the search field correctly set
r+, handing to Ludo
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: review?(jpellico)
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: review+
Comment 28•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 168722 [details]
a new nib file with the sizing of the search field correctly set
mike .nib file and patch file are ok now, asking for sr and landing.
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: review+
Comment 29•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #21) > I'd say move it above the list, though, not below it. it should be above, right > justified (like all other search bars in the OS). Just a note, Apple doesn't _always_ put the search bar in that location. See the Font panel.
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•20 years ago
|
||
a few things here: this whole patch has tabs for indents, not spaces. please fix. 2space indents only +- (void)controlTextDidChange:(NSNotification *)aNotification why both allowing searching on anything other than host? will users ever need that kind of flexibility? i mean really, who on earth knows what a cookie's path is and would search on it? + case 1: //user selected to search in all fielda each of these cases should be a constant + [[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] addObserver: self + selector: @selector(cookiesSearchFieldCriteriaDidChange:) + name: @"STFPopUpButtonCellSelectionChanged" + object: nil]; do we unregister this observer in dealloc? +- (void) setMenu: (NSMenu*) inMenu please comment that this is probably destructive to |inMenu| (it changes the target/action of each item)
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 168722 [details]
a new nib file with the sizing of the search field correctly set
sr-
Attachment #168722 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton) → superreview-
Comment 32•20 years ago
|
||
Removed the code to search on other field than the host. This simplifies the code a lot.
Attachment #170612 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 33•20 years ago
|
||
Removed the code to search on other field than the host. This simplifies the code a lot.
Attachment #167284 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #168722 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #170613 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 34•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #170615 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 35•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #33) > Created an attachment (id=170613) [edit] > Modified the source to reflect Mike's comments seems ok. > Removed the code to search on other field than the host. This simplifies the > code a lot. The nib file still has the ability to let the user choose the search field and this "menu" is always empty. Would you care to correct that ?
Comment 36•20 years ago
|
||
removed the menu from the search field
Attachment #170612 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #170613 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #171541 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 37•20 years ago
|
||
removed the menu from the search field plus remove notification for change of that menu
Attachment #171541 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #171544 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 38•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #37) > Created an attachment (id=171544) [edit] > patch file > > removed the menu from the search field plus remove notification for change of > that menu Patch does not apply cleanly : patching file src/browser/SearchTextField.m Hunk #1 FAILED at 111. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rej File to patch: PreferencePanes/Privacy/PrivacyPane.h patching file PreferencePanes/Privacy/PrivacyPane.h Hunk #2 FAILED at 26. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED Would you respining it with an updated source ?
Comment 39•20 years ago
|
||
this patch should be apply in conjunction with the Attachment #172297 [details] [diff] to Bug 279664 as it depends on the fix for this bug.
Attachment #171544 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 40•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #170615 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 41•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 172300 [details] [diff] [review] source code asking for second review
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: review?(jpellico)
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: review+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #170612 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #170613 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #170615 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #171541 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #171544 -
Flags: review?(qa-mozilla)
Comment 42•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 172300 [details] [diff] [review] source code Just a warning....you may need to re-spin the nib again...I just alerted smfr to the presence of a bug on that sheet, and he made a change and committed it.
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: review?(jpellico) → review+
Comment 43•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 172300 [details] [diff] [review] source code Requesting sr from pink. Plase beware the nib issue I mentioned.
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Comment 44•20 years ago
|
||
updated as of 1/26/2005 10:40PM easterm time
Attachment #172301 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 45•20 years ago
|
||
hold the phone here. there are two search fields? why do you want to search on the permission field? i'm confused.
Comment 46•20 years ago
|
||
Ha wow I didn't realize it was also for the permssion list. I have a hard time believing users would ever need that. Cookies overview yes but permissions seems a bit over the top.
Reporter | ||
Comment 47•20 years ago
|
||
I dunno, I personally have a few thousand entries in my cookie permissions list (according to cat hostperm.1 | grep cookie | wc -l , anyway).
Comment 48•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #46) To me searching the permission is the most important. I set my browser to ask me before accepting a cooky and i usually deny it. So when i come to a site that requires it, i have to go back and change the permission. On the other side i almost never user the cookie overview pane. Different use, different user, i think both are really useful. Maybe not to the same user though.
Assignee | ||
Comment 49•20 years ago
|
||
I'm really sorry, i thought the two search fields were in the same sheet. i'm a moron and totally misunderstood what was being searched on for the site permission field. i'll re-review in a bit.
Assignee | ||
Comment 50•20 years ago
|
||
a few nits: + if (![filterString isEqualToString: @""]) it's faster to do |if ([filterString length])| + if (mCachedPermissions && mPermissionManager && ([aNotification object] == mPermissionFilterField)) i think this is a bit more readable if you put the search field/object comparison first in each if statement. Thats the most significant condition when you're scanning down the page. + for (row = mCachedPermissions->Count() - 1 ; row>=0 ; row--) please move the declaration for |row| into the for loop in both loops. no need to have it at a higher scope if it's only used inside each loop. + [self populatePermissionCache]; adding every row back in and then whittling it down again with _every key stroke_ seems like it would be really slow with a large number of cookies. how fast is it with a large list? can we do anything to make this better?
Reporter | ||
Comment 51•20 years ago
|
||
> + [self populatePermissionCache];
>
> adding every row back in and then whittling it down again with _every key
> stroke_ seems like it would be really slow with a large number of cookies. how
> fast is it with a large list? can we do anything to make this better?
I like seeing it change on every keystroke. What did Simon do for the
history/bookmark searching? Use a temporary array for the results list? That
seems to be plenty fast.
Assignee | ||
Comment 52•20 years ago
|
||
i agree i like seeing it update live, just wondering if there is a better way to do it. cc'ing simon in case he has any suggestions, having just done it. can't hurt to ask the question ;)
Comment 53•20 years ago
|
||
History and bookmarks have a 'search results' mutable array, and on each keystroke we clear the array, enumerate all the BM/history items, adding matching ones to the array, then reloadData on the outline view. This kind of stuff is pretty fast as long as you only update the table view once.
Assignee | ||
Comment 54•20 years ago
|
||
so that's the reverse of what's done here, where everything is added to the list and what shouldn't be there is stripped away. I guess they even out to the same complexity, prolly not enough to worry about. If we get reports I guess we can switch it around later. sr=pink with the other changes i mentioned above.
Comment 55•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #172300 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #173080 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Comment 56•20 years ago
|
||
did a mistake on the previous one, so here is the correct patch
Attachment #173080 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #173081 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Assignee | ||
Comment 57•20 years ago
|
||
one last nit, i swear next one will get an sr :) + int row = 0; + for (row = mCachedPermissions->Count() - 1 ; row>=0 ; row--) should be for (int row = mCached....) declare vars in the tightest scope possible.
Comment 58•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #173081 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #173173 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Assignee | ||
Comment 59•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 173173 [details] [diff] [review] source code patch sr=pink
Attachment #173173 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton) → superreview+
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #173081 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #173080 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
Assignee | ||
Comment 60•20 years ago
|
||
latest patch file doesn't apply. i get "patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line"
Assignee | ||
Comment 61•20 years ago
|
||
my bad on the patch, it did apply correctly. twiddled some of the spacing and comment verbage to be more in line with the style of the rest of the file. Oliver, thank you very much for putting up with the review process and for this contribution. I'm sure folks are gonna love it!! Hope to see more from you in the future (if you aren't done with us) :) fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #172300 -
Flags: superreview?(pinkerton)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•