David Paleino a écrit :
Agreed, go change the wiki now! ;)
Done, according to various replies.
--
BOFH excuse #443:
Zombie processes detected, machine is haunted.
___
Bash-completion-devel mailing list
Bash-completion-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Guillaume
Rousseguillaume.rou...@inria.fr wrote:
David Paleino a écrit :
Agreed, go change the wiki now! ;)
Done, according to various replies.
I'll keep on working on the test suite in the mean time, supposing the
`test' `doc' directories are not standing
Freddy Vulto a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Ville Skyttäville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
I have no problems with this plan (although I have a pile of fairly innocent
patches that I'd like to see go in the next release, more on that in a
separate mail). But the test suite sure would be
Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
Hello list.
According to our roadmap,
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/BashCompletion/Proposals/Roadmap, we still
have to finish splitting completions in individual files, and also to
review existing completions.
We finished 2.b (rewieving), and we almost finished
On Monday 08 June 2009, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
Hello list.
According to our roadmap,
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/BashCompletion/Proposals/Roadmap, we still
have to finish splitting completions in individual files, and also to
review existing completions.
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Hello list.
According to our roadmap,
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/BashCompletion/Proposals/Roadmap, we still
have to finish splitting completions in individual files, and also to
review existing completions. I did a first pass on first task,
Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Hello list.
According to our roadmap,
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/BashCompletion/Proposals/Roadmap, we still
have to finish splitting completions in individual files, and also to
review existing completions. I did a first
Hello list.
According to our roadmap,
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/BashCompletion/Proposals/Roadmap, we still
have to finish splitting completions in individual files, and also to
review existing completions. I did a first pass on first task, but as
the second mostly concerns completions I
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:27:48 +0100
David Paleino d.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
dunno about other package formats but I suppose they have similar
mechanisms. I have no problem with that, it's obviously doable,
just thought I'd mention it in case someone didn't think of it.
I already thought
On Friday 13 February 2009, Freddy Vulto wrote:
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:11:41 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 04 February 2009, David Paleino wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:59:25 +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
I'd insert the
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
[..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
I was starting a branch for the release process... what version number you
believe is sane?
I'd start at 1.0, (so as not to be necessarily linked to the bash
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
[..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
I was starting a branch for the release process... what version number you
believe is sane?
I'd start at
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:25:08 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 + (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
[..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
I was starting a branch for the release
David Paleino d.paleino at gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:11:41 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 04 February 2009, David Paleino wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:59:25 +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
I'd insert the following items between 1 and 2, or between 2 and 3:
14 matches
Mail list logo
