2 things:
1 - reply-all to enlightenment-svn lacks enlightenment-devel
2 - bit pointless to keep .cvsignore, let's remove them altogether?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: kwo
> Date: 2008-08-18 11:04:11 -0700 (Mon, 18 Aug 2008)
> New Revision:
On Monday, 18 August 2008, at 15:20:35 (-0300),
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> 1 - reply-all to enlightenment-svn lacks enlightenment-devel
Fixed.
> 2 - bit pointless to keep .cvsignore, let's remove them altogether?
Subversion supports both. Personally I like the files way better than
the
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:42:19 +0200, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Monday, 18 August 2008, at 15:20:35 (-0300),
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>
...
>> 2 - bit pointless to keep .cvsignore, let's remove them altogether?
>
> Subversion supports both. Personally I like the fi
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:32:16 +0200 "Kim Woelders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:42:19 +0200, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 18 August 2008, at 15:20:35 (-0300),
> > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> >
> ...
> >> 2 - bit pointless to keep .
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:41:52 +1000 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:32:16 +0200 "Kim Woelders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> babbled:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:42:19 +0200, Michael Jennings
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 18 Augu
