> Sounds good. Git is optional; please do if it's easy, but don't worry
> if it's not. I can patch in multiple patches just fine.
I use git for development anyway.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Mike Aizatsky wrote:
>>> Well, it would be sit
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Mike Aizatsky wrote:
>> Well, it would be sitting in svn and not being tested in any way
>> except that it compiles. If you want to commit the pieces somewhere,
>> why don't we make an svn branch?
>
> I don't think svn branch will help much. It will only add headac
> Well, it would be sitting in svn and not being tested in any way
> except that it compiles. If you want to commit the pieces somewhere,
> why don't we make an svn branch?
I don't think svn branch will help much. It will only add headaches.
What do you say if I would merge all LGTM'ed changes to
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM, wrote:
> I can create a separate CFG changelist + CFG-based analyses changelist.
> I just worry that I will have to maintain several changelist branches +
> main branch with all the code together. I would certainly prefer to land
> this code into SVN even before it
