On 10.12.2016 10:30, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus wrote:
What branch do you recommend?
lazarus_v4 or lazarus_v5
Thank you!
On 10.12.2016 10:29, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus wrote:
The package file is on Source folder. The lazarus branches are the
ones with "lazaru
2016-12-10 6:29 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara <
luizameri...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2016-12-10 5:23 GMT-03:00 Ondrej Pokorny via Lazarus <
> lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>:
>
>> On 22.11.2016 19:02, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus wrote:
>>
>> GitHub. Is necessary to sync with main repo
2016-12-10 5:23 GMT-03:00 Ondrej Pokorny via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>:
> On 22.11.2016 19:02, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus wrote:
>
> GitHub. Is necessary to sync with main repository
>
>
> What branch do you recommend? There seem to be no Lazarus packages either
> in th
On 22.11.2016 19:02, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus wrote:
GitHub. Is necessary to sync with main repository
What branch do you recommend? There seem to be no Lazarus packages
either in the v4, v5 or master:
https://github.com/blikblum/VirtualTreeView-Lazarus/tree/lazarus_master/Pac
Am 22.11.2016 um 19:05 schrieb Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus:
2016-11-22 14:44 GMT-03:00 Werner Pamler via Lazarus
mailto:lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>>:
Luiz, I like your idea to add a non-commented hint to the main
source file. So every user will get notified at compilat
2016-11-22 14:44 GMT-03:00 Werner Pamler via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>:
>
> Luiz, I like your idea to add a non-commented hint to the main source
> file. So every user will get notified at compilation that he is using an
> unsupported version.
>
> Shouldn't we do the same with
> - Z
2016-11-22 14:58 GMT-03:00 Ondrej Pokorny via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>:
> On 22.11.2016 18:53, Mattias Gaertner via Lazarus wrote:
>
>> Proposal:
>> Delete files in those folders and add README.txt pointing to new
>> repository.
>>
>
> What will be the new one and only repository?
On 22.11.2016 18:53, Mattias Gaertner via Lazarus wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:28:31 -0300
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus
wrote:
Currently there are three repositories of VirtualTreeView LCL port.
In Lazarus-CCR:
virtualtreeview: first port, long unmaintained
virtualtreeview-new: o
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:28:31 -0300
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus
wrote:
> Currently there are three repositories of VirtualTreeView LCL port.
>
> In Lazarus-CCR:
>
> virtualtreeview: first port, long unmaintained
> virtualtreeview-new: original repository of the current port
Proposal
Am 22.11.2016 um 18:28 schrieb Luiz Americo Pereira Camara via Lazarus:
Currently there are three repositories of VirtualTreeView LCL port.
In Lazarus-CCR:
virtualtreeview: first port, long unmaintained
virtualtreeview-new: original repository of the current port
In GitHub:
https://github.com/
Hi Luiz Americo Pereira Camara Maybe it's better to keep standard git naming like master (for current), and simple branches like v4,v5,v6,... as necessary? Why having non-standard lazarus_master in _new_ repo?Is existing master just an old "history"? Please keep it simple. 22.11.2016, 20:28, "Luiz
Currently there are three repositories of VirtualTreeView LCL port.
In Lazarus-CCR:
virtualtreeview: first port, long unmaintained
virtualtreeview-new: original repository of the current port
In GitHub:
https://github.com/blikblum/VirtualTreeView-Lazarus : active repository of
current port
Some
12 matches
Mail list logo