Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-08 Thread Bo Thorsen
On Thursday 07 February 2002 21:59, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:35:27 +0100 > > From: Mads Martin J?rgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Lets keep this like the kernel. One guy gets all the patches, and > > decides what goes in or not. Decisions are not a reason for or against

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread Roman Neuhauser
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:35:27 +0100 > From: Mads Martin J?rgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: David Terrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: cvs on sf.net > > *

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread Mads Martin Jørgensen
* Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Feb 07. 2002 20:24]: > > Are you planning on letting other people commit to the cvs tree > > on sf directly? > > not really. xOr may eventually get access. Of course plans change. Nothing > is set in stone. > > Blackbox has never been in CVS before.

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread David Terrell
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 11:22:24AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > On 07-Feb-2002 David Terrell wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > >> > > >> > Vendor branches don't give you good commit history. > >> > > >> > >> but they do reflect my code a

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 07-Feb-2002 David Terrell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: >> > >> > Vendor branches don't give you good commit history. >> > >> >> but they do reflect my code and cvs usage. > > Are you planning on letting other people commit to the cvs tree > o

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread David Terrell
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > > Vendor branches don't give you good commit history. > > > > but they do reflect my code and cvs usage. Are you planning on letting other people commit to the cvs tree on sf directly? -- David Terrell| "S

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> > Vendor branches don't give you good commit history. > but they do reflect my code and cvs usage.

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-02-07 Thread David Terrell
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:08:44PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > ok, cvs is up to date on sf.net. It even has 0.62.1pre0 which is not released. > > The website shows (0 commits, 0 adds). Not sure how it tracks this. My usual > usage of cvs is: > > cvs import "blackbox version" blackbox

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-01-26 Thread Jeff Taylor
The CVS stats on SF.net are updated every day (or two). You won't see the commits until the next day. I think the stats are recorded every day, but don't always make it to the Web pages. It almost looks like somebody does the recording and updating manually. *shrug* Anyway, the stats are not

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-01-25 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
>> >> For some reason it does not consider my usage a commit or an add. cvs is >> being >> used, just not in the way some people are accustomed to seeing. > > Will you be making mention of this somewhere on the page, perhaps on the > newly created blackbox page, when it's done? > definately,

Re: cvs on sf.net

2002-01-25 Thread Derek Cunningham
On Fri, Jan25,02 18:08, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > ok, cvs is up to date on sf.net. It even has 0.62.1pre0 which is not released. > > The website shows (0 commits, 0 adds). Not sure how it tracks this. My usual > usage of cvs is: > > cvs import "blackbox version" blackbox blackbox blackbox-

cvs on sf.net

2002-01-25 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
ok, cvs is up to date on sf.net. It even has 0.62.1pre0 which is not released. The website shows (0 commits, 0 adds). Not sure how it tracks this. My usual usage of cvs is: cvs import "blackbox version" blackbox blackbox blackbox-0_XX_X so at any time you can do cvs co -rblackbox-0_XX_X to