Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I haven't seen these patches go in upstream. Any chance of having them
>> committed so I don't have to carry them locally ?
>
> If they can be automatically generated from the .cvsignore ones, then how
> about ad
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
> James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't seen these patches go in upstream. Any chance of having them
> > committed so I don't have to carry them locally ?
>
> If they can be automatically generated from the .cvsignore ones, then how
> abou
James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't seen these patches go in upstream. Any chance of having them
> committed so I don't have to carry them locally ?
If they can be automatically generated from the .cvsignore ones, then how
about adding a rule to do that as well? Then, when the .c
I haven't seen these patches go in upstream. Any chance of having them
committed so I don't have to carry them locally ?
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, James Morris wrote:
> Add .gitignore files to make developing with git easier. These
> are simply copies of the .cvsignore files.
>
> S
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:45:45PM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> Add .gitignore files to make developing with git easier. These
> are simply copies of the .cvsignore files.
Although we don't officially use git, this is a reasonable idea
since I know a number of people track libvirt via the
