[cairo] [cairo-commit] 2 commits - src/cairo-image-surface.c test/operator-source.c test/operator-source.image16.ref.png test/operator-source.pdf.rgb24.ref.png test/operator-source.quartz.argb32.ref.png test/operator-source.quartz.rgb24.ref.png test/operator-source.ref.png test/operator-source.rgb24.ref.png test/operator-source.svg12.argb32.xfail.png test/operator-source.svg12.rgb24.xfail.png test/operator-source.xlib-fallback.ref.png test/operator-source.xlib.ref.png test/operator-source.xlib.rgb24.ref.png

[Chris Wilson]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:59:35 +0200, Uli Schlachter <psychon at znc.in> wrote:
> On 01.04.2011 00:01, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> > On 31/03/11 9:48 AM, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> >> New commits:
> >> commit a80bf9ed43ebb510027f95f623a012c55f7566b3
> >> Author: Uli Schlachter<psychon at znc.in>
> >> Date:   Mon Mar 21 18:46:32 2011 +0100
> >>
> >>      image: Don't use the fast path if it's wrong
> > Should this also land on 1.10?
> 
> Both the bugzilla bug report and the report on the mailing list are against
> cairo 1.10, so I guess that 1.10 also has this bug. The fix is also quite small
> and relatively low-risk (IMHO) since it just skips a fast-path.
> 
> However, I have no clue what the procedure here is. When you feel like something
> is worth it, you just push it to the 1.10 branch? Is there anyone who has to be
> asked first? Would the change to the test suite be pushed to the 1.10 branch, too?

For a case like this where you have a clear bug fix that impacts users
and is low risk, then please do commit to 1.10 branch. And include the
test case where convenient. (i.e. unless doing so will cause massive
breakage to 1.10).

If you know ahead of time something may be relevant to 1.10, include a tag
in the commit to remind us. If you have any doubt, ask.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre