On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that was exactly the problem I ran into with trying to provide a
> repo that was just a mirror of the files resulting from a certain
> Guilt patch queue. Its history had to change, which screwed up the
> clones.
>
Hi,
"Chris Double" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Krzysztof Kowalczyk
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Have a separate branches for A and B? (and then delete them when they
>> are merged and no longer necessary).
>
> This is the approach I take for my git repository
Hi,
"Krzysztof Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But be sure to read section "problems with rewriting history". In a
> nutshell: it invalidates cloned repos i.e. git rebase is fine if
> you're the only one working on that branch but it makes collaboration
> (i.e. others cloning the branch
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Gavin Romig-Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem that I have is of interleaved changes. I work for a
>> little on patch A, then patch B, then patch A again, but A and B
>> should be kept separate so that they can be easily reviewed. A and B
>> may or ma
Michael FIG wrote:
The problem that I have is of interleaved changes. I work for a
little on patch A, then patch B, then patch A again, but A and B
should be kept separate so that they can be easily reviewed. A and B
may or may have dependencies on one another.
Separate branches for A and
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Krzysztof Kowalczyk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> The problem that I have is of interleaved changes. I work for a
>> little on patch A, then patch B, then patch A again, but A and B
>> should be kept separate so that they can be easily reviewed. A and B
>> may
Michael FIG wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If anybody out there actually uses my GIT repos to fetch COLA and/or
> compile it with my build fixes, could you let me know? I'm interested
> to see if the people who encouraged me to use it will benefit from it,
> or if it was just the famous GIT evangelism at work.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't you have this problem in both cases? If the changes are
>> independent, it shouldn't matter whether they are in the form of a
>> patch file or in git (in which case they can be extracted as
>> patches).
>
> The proble
Hi,
"Krzysztof Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't you have this problem in both cases? If the changes are
> independent, it shouldn't matter whether they are in the form of a
> patch file or in git (in which case they can be extracted as
> patches).
The problem that I have is of inte
Hi,
Karl Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the reason that gc-7.0 isn't the default?
To my knowledge, the only real reason is that Ian is pretty backlogged
with e-mail, and is spending his coding efforts on creating the next
Jolt rather than committing the (relatively minor) build
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there any benefit of using guilt over having a branch with the
>> patches applied? It would sure be simpler for users and should also be
>> simpler for maintainers of the repository.
>
> I tried to do something like this,
On Sunday 15 June 2008 09:10:21 pm Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
> I just successfully got it.
>
> Unfortunately I'm on latest OS X and it doesn't compile:
>
> This problem was already discussed on the list on possibly going with
> gc-7.0 would fix it but I didn't have the time to put any effort
Hi,
"Krzysztof Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any benefit of using guilt over having a branch with the
> patches applied? It would sure be simpler for users and should also be
> simpler for maintainers of the repository.
I tried to do something like this, but it really looks l
Following up on my own post: I didn't install guild but I manually
installed build.patch with patch -p1 wrote:
> I just successfully got it.
>
> Unfortunately I'm on latest OS X and it doesn't compile:
>
> RT=1 -DATOMIC_UNCOLLECTABLE=1 -I./include -fexceptions -g -O2
> -fexceptions -MT darwin_stop
I just successfully got it.
Unfortunately I'm on latest OS X and it doesn't compile:
RT=1 -DATOMIC_UNCOLLECTABLE=1 -I./include -fexceptions -g -O2
-fexceptions -MT darwin_stop_world.lo -MD -MP -MF
.deps/darwin_stop_world.Tpo -c darwin_stop_world.c -fno-common -DPIC
-o .libs/darwin_stop_world.lo
Hi,
If anybody out there actually uses my GIT repos to fetch COLA and/or
compile it with my build fixes, could you let me know? I'm interested
to see if the people who encouraged me to use it will benefit from it,
or if it was just the famous GIT evangelism at work. :P
Again, the repository info
16 matches
Mail list logo
