Re: [PATCH] enable double buffering on GtkCanvasPeer

["Scott Gilbertson Onsite" <sgilbertson-onsite at cogeco dot ca>]

> Scott> I don't think this patch has been comitted yet.
>
> It hasn't, sorry about that.

Also the lightweight peer patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q2/msg00140.html
I really think the patch is as non-invasive as it can be while still making
the test program pass, and nobody has told me any reason the lightweight
peer needs to be platform-dependent.  Also, it would have no effect at all
on programs which worked without the patch (i.e. ones with no lightweights).

> The truth is, I'd be happy to have you take over the xlib peers
> entirely.

Sounds good to me, at least until I'm no longer making significant changes
to them.

> (Changes outside the peers would still require approval,
> at least for the time being.)

My double-buffering patch changed java/awt/Component.java (createImage)
Also libjava/gnu/awt/j2d/IntegerGraphicsState.java, but I don't think it's
used outside the xlib peers.
The lightweight peer patch is entirely outside the xlib peers.

> The only barrier is that I've been rewriting your ChangeLog entries to
> conform to our coding standards.  Let's change this situation, since
> I'm sure it will make both of us happier :-)

I thought we had, but looking back at my most recent patch (xlib
double-buffering support) I see that I've made all the filenames relative to
gcc instead of gcc/libjava, which I would not normally have done.  It comes
from cutting and pasting out of my diff file, which is relative to the gcc
base directory.  In my opinion, apart from that and a line which was wrapped
by my email program, the log for that patch is OK.

I seem to be genetically predisposed to messing up the format of ChangeLog
entries.