On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:00 AM, bch wrote:
> > Still, I get irrationally pleased when I read bad press for git or its
> cronies.
>
> I don't see anything there that precludes one from s/github/chissel/;
> s/git/fossil/ and having this same thing happen. I think Stephen is
> on-point that this is
> Still, I get irrationally pleased when I read bad press for git or its
> cronies.
I don't see anything there that precludes one from s/github/chissel/;
s/git/fossil/ and having this same thing happen. I think Stephen is
on-point that this is less about git (read: has nothing to do with
git) tha
On Sep 2, 2015 2:43 AM, "Stephan Beal" wrote:
>
> Management summary:
>
> the bug was that the MSVC integration tool checked in to a public repo
instead of a private one. The developer did something seriously... errr
stupid which was amplified by that bug...
>
> -
>
> Within around ten min
Management summary:
the bug was that the MSVC integration tool checked in to a public repo
instead of a private one. The developer did something seriously... errr
stupid which was amplified by that bug...
-
Within around ten minutes after publishing his code, he received a
notification f
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Scott Robison
wrote:
> Not really a flaw with git, but this jumped out at me tonight:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/01/github_bug_costs_man_thousands/
>
Be careful to take anything The Register says with a big, fat grain of
salt. i've seen so much bad/wro
Not really a flaw with git, but this jumped out at me tonight:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/01/github_bug_costs_man_thousands/
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
6 matches
Mail list logo
