On 12/10/13, 10:18 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 15:09:13 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I don't understand. Rebasing the release branch on top of master
shouldn't be an option, as it means you are taking all the changes to
master and put them in the release branch. That's ju
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 15:09:13 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
I don't understand. Rebasing the release branch on top of master
shouldn't be an option, as it means you are taking all the
changes to
master and put them in the release branch. That's just using
master as
a release branch.
Dicebot, el 10 de December a las 14:01 me escribiste:
> On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> >I which case, updating with master will be counter productive.
> >Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs to
> >cherry-pick what was not originally in
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:37:11 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:30:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist
primarily to organize development.
I'm not talking about public in the sense of them being an
artefa
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:30:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist
primarily to organize development.
I'm not talking about public in the sense of them being an
artefact we want to provide to end-users, but just in the sense
that more t
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:25:02 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
I which case, updating with master will be counter
productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will ju
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
cherry-picking is discouraged in that scenario as it will
complicate merging 2.065 branch back into master after release.
rebase sounds like best fit.
Or just dro
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
I which case, updating with master will be counter productive.
Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs
to cherry-pick what was not originally in
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
I which case, updating with master will be counter productive.
Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs
to cherry-pick what was not originally included in the branch.
cherry-picking is discouraged in that
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 05:45:26 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 15:51:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 14:49:05 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
2) What is the process to update a branch with all changes
master? I will need to do this because a lot o
On 12/10/13, 12:45 AM, Kenji Hara wrote:
On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 15:51:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 14:49:05 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
2) What is the process to update a branch with all changes
master? I will need to do this because a lot of changes have occur
On 12/10/13, 2:16 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-12-09 16:30, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Make sure I got GCC, I don't think the test suite passes if DMD built
with Clang.
* you got.
Ok... will do.
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 15:54 +0100, Dejan Lekic wrote:
[…]
>
> Btw, I forgot to tell you... I talked to fedora people about
> having dmd in Fedora. They said it will probably be rejected
> because of the backend license, because they are not allowed to
> freely distribute the software. So I gues
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 10:10:09 UTC, eles wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 09:44:38 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles:
On Thursda
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 09:44:38 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
Am 31.10.2013 16:01, schrieb eles:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:20:54 UTC, bearophile wrote:
eles:
Speaking about that, why DMD's source files are written in C++
but bear extension .c?
You seem to appreciate for yourselves a freedom that he denies
to others.
Thank you for bringing that good example. Forbidding arbitra
17 matches
Mail list logo