Pete Batard wrote:
>> >>> bullshit dictatorial statements such as
>> >>> "I just don't want CR in the repo",
>> >
>> > Maybe now I'm just confused, but I thought I actually agreed with him here,
>> > partly because of some sort of bug in git, and possibly for other reasons.
>>
>> Of course, what y
Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
>> Ah, so Peter's 'solution' (as I've said I've been tool lazy to look
>> at the code) to some perceived problem requires that the build
environment
>> invokes git ?!
No, it requires we either choose to not invoke git and make it blank, or
that we TRY to invoke git and fail gr
Pete Batard wrote:
>> If we go this route it means that every time Peter wants us to implement
>> an half-assed solution that we shouldn't follow in the first place,
Peter's recently been very accommodating about copying patches that he
probably doesn't want in libusb, and quickly. I don't know i
Pete Batard wrote:
>> 2. They require invoking git during make, which of course means that if
>> you're building from MSVC or WDK, this whole versioning falls apart.
Can you add the fields to the struct, but leave them blank in this case? If
so, what is the downside of doing that?
Michael
