btw, once it is at github, it can be the only repo with multiple access
interfaces: svn,git
https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion
Finally, we can commit from git or svn w/o keeping r/o mirrors for
hg/git .
What do you think?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM,
That's pretty clever, actually (SVN and git effectively together in the same
repo). Cool!
However, migrating to git has all the same problems that I mentioned in the
prior email to you. Is Mellanox volunteering to do all the work for conversion?
On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Mike Dubman wrot
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> That's pretty clever, actually (SVN and git effectively together in the same
> repo). Cool!
>
> However, migrating to git has all the same problems that I mentioned in the
> prior email to you. Is Mellanox volunteering to do all the work for
Yeah, even if someone volunteered to do the conversion work, we wouldn't get
agreement on making such a change. Some of us hate git (myself included), some
feel similarly about mercurial, etc.
Unfortunately, we've seen enough pain from git+svn to definitely not want to go
that route.
The curre
re item (5):
The current svn tree can be set as read-only and serve as a reference for
old commit numbers.
It is rarery used anyway to search through historic commit numbers and can
be done in read-only historic tree.
All other items can use svn interface of guthub and stay w/o any change.
It is
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
> re item (5):
>
> The current svn tree can be set as read-only and serve as a reference for old
> commit numbers.
> It is rarery used anyway to search through historic commit numbers and can be
> done in read-only historic tree.
I use it a lo
FWIW: Ralph, I think Mike is proposing that we use the built in github SVN
functionality. I.E., you can use git or SVN - both can read or write to the
same backend repo. Pretty clever of github, actually. See the github blog entry
he referenced, if you care.
But I agree: although dvcs are very
Thanks for the new 1.6.1rc3. It compiles well, but
I get 3 of 5 tests failed on OSX 10.8 using clang-4.0.
The output is here:
https://gist.github.com/3388612
If there is specific output from the failing tests you need,
let me know how to generate it. When I compile and test
with llvm-gcc-4.2.1,
Hi Jeff,
On 8/18/2012 3:54 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Mike / Yevgeny --
>
> Can you comment on what is going on here? It would be really good to
> understand exactly what these 2 MLX4 parameters are (e.g., why you suggested
> increasing one and not the other), and why there would be differences
