On Tuesday 1. December 2009 01.08.46 Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 15:59:16 Eike Hein wrote:
> > On 11/30/2009 01:27 AM, Michael Jansen wrote:
> > > This is btw one of the things i really don't like about the git move. I
> > > use git-svn locally and prefer git to svn usage wis
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 01:08:46AM +0100, Michael Jansen wrote:
> And i have top upload the changes in git. Try to push to a qt clone on
> gitorious you haven't used for 3 month. And so the *know it all's*
> won't bother me. Imagine you still have a open merge request so you
> can't delete and recr
On November 30, 2009 16:08:46 Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 15:59:16 Eike Hein wrote:
> > On 11/30/2009 01:27 AM, Michael Jansen wrote:
> > > This is btw one of the things i really don't like about the git move. I
> > > use git-svn locally and prefer git to svn usage wise. But
On Monday 30 November 2009 15:59:16 Eike Hein wrote:
> On 11/30/2009 01:27 AM, Michael Jansen wrote:
> > This is btw one of the things i really don't like about the git move. I
> > use git-svn locally and prefer git to svn usage wise. But having to put
> > up with cloning a myriad of repositories o
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009, Chani wrote:
>
>> erf, good point. the more things we have in git, the more of a pain it is
>> to fetch them, until we have a nice easy script that knows where
>> everything lives and can properly update all o
On Monday 30 November 2009, Chani wrote:
> erf, good point. the more things we have in git, the more of a pain it is
> to fetch them, until we have a nice easy script that knows where
> everything lives and can properly update all or a subset of them.
I guess we just have to keep the ruleset fo
Sorry, as I said yesterday I had set up my mail client
fresh, which made for a bumpy ride. I originally mailed
the list from the wrong identity, then ping'ed Thiago
on IRC to disregard that one, and re-sent using the
correct, subscribed address, but something got lost in
communication and the dupe
On 11/30/2009 01:27 AM, Michael Jansen wrote:
> This is btw one of the things i really don't like about the git move. I use
> git-svn locally and
> prefer git to svn usage wise. But having to put up with cloning a myriad of
> repositories on
> gitorious, keeping them up to date which means uplo
On 11/30/2009 09:27 AM, Johan Sørensen wrote:
> That sounds right, there's no differentiation between normal push and
> tagging permissions; it's all pushes as far as Gitorious is concerned.
> Unless you've turned on "deny force pushes" for the repository, which
> would also prevent creation of tag
2009/11/28 ComputerDruid :
> I just read on the gitorious blog about a solution to the problem we had about
> having too many people emailed about merge requests. From the wording used, it
> seems that this was done specifically for us (although perhaps other projects
> wanted it too).
>
> http://b
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Eike Hein wrote:
> However, in the course of the preparations we believe we've
> hit upon a problem with tagging on Gitorious.
>
> It appears that pushing of release tags to projects owned by
> the kde-developers team currently has to be regulated by ad-
> mins of
11 matches
Mail list logo
