[Pan-users] Re: clicking on any header-pane bar, only re-sorts header lines by Date only

[SciFi]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:03:27 +0000, walt wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:03:27 +0000, SciFi wrote:
> 
>> $ svn info gtk+
>> Path: gtk+
>> URL: http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gtk+/trunk Repository Root:
>> http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gtk+ Repository UUID:
>> 7eb1c76a-c725-0410-a3b5-a37faf6256f8 Revision: 18601  <-----------
> 
> Silly me, I missed the obvious!  I'm running gtk+-2.10.13, which pan
> uses without problems.  That tag turns out to be revision 18116 (per the
> svnweb browser) so all you need to do is to checkout revision 18116 and
> build it. For consistency you should build rev 5472 of glib as well.
> 
> This rcs stuff is pretty nifty :o)

Walt,
I really do appreciate your efforts to find a workaround.
There is a branch for official gtk+-2.10.x, but instead I
am following the trunk for gtk+-2.11.x -- see?  2.11.x is
the "development" branch where things are tested for some
time before a "release" tarball of 2.11.x comes out.

There is something wrong with /current/ state of affairs,
in the 2.11.x line somewhere, and that is why I am track-
ing them this way.  I know the 2.11.x line is a much more
liberal environment where-in they may make big changes as
the one(s) that are affecting my pan2 apparently.

If no one does this kind of testing, tho, who will?

Once these changes are released officially, we will be in
a debugging frenzy all over the place I'm afraid.

That is why I need someone to duplicate the current state
of affairs, please.  I am sometimes the type that will go
out on a limb like this, like a person who does the fore-
warning.

The problem isn't particularly bothersome, else I do know
enough to use one of the "release" tarballs instead.  I'm
quite sure the 2.10.x line doesn't have this bug.

I wonder how far back this bug may be seen if no one else
is using even the latest gtk+-2.11.x release tarballs.

I can't feel right in filing a bugreport on pan2 just for
the reason that I feel we're not tracking the 2.11.x line
since 2.11.x isn't "in production" and has yet to offici-
ally replace the 2.10.x line.  However, I /could/ use the
pan2 bugreport to upload the screengrabs (the list moder-
ator apparently is on vacation, else that long post would
already have come thru here ;) ).  So, let me go ahead to
open a report just so we'll have it on record anyway.

Thanks for finding the rcs level that might "fix" this as
it's something to know, but I really need someone to test
the 2.11.x line to validate the problem.  I'm really hop-
ing it's not just my system.  ;)