Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking

2006-02-11 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:58:43PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > Right. > | > | We have quite a set of branches already... are they all actual anymore? > > No. (That was a rhetorical Q right?) That's what I guessed. > | Based on names,

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking

2006-02-11 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:52:15PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > Perhaps. Do any of these contain stuff we still want to have a look at? > I certainly plan to have my new project branches with a limited lifetime > (and SVN never "really" deletes anything :-) The canonical solution to this is to k

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > On top level we should only have the active non-personal branches. | > Personal branches should be moved to 'personal'¹ some appropriate | > place. Obosolete branches shoudl be moved to 'obsolete'² (I don't | > want to delete them, they would be so

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:52:15PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: | > Perhaps. Do any of these contain stuff we still want to have a look at? | > I certainly plan to have my new project branches with a limited lifetime | > (and SVN never "really" deletes a

[Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-10 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 12:16 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > > Anybody else notice that its sshd seems dead? As a result I cannot use > > CVS. > > The reason I'm asking is, I've got multi-paragraph change tracking > working (for 1.4.1 as pro

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Michael Gerz
Martin Vermeer wrote: Basically it introduces one more position in a paragraph, after the last character (i.e., pos = par.size() ) to represent the change attached to the paragraph break ("carriage return", which we don't really have in our model). Martin, thank you very much for your work! O

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:22:59AM +0100, Michael Gerz wrote: > Martin Vermeer wrote: > > >Basically it introduces one more position in a paragraph, after the last > >character (i.e., pos = par.size() ) to represent the change attached to > >the paragraph break ("carriage return", which we don't r

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > I am busy right now but I will hopefully find some time for testing by | > the end of next week. | | Let's hope the tree is open for 1.4.1 then... But it really should be tested somewhere else... don't you think, a trunk or a branch. -- L

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > I am busy right now but I will hopefully find some time for testing by > | > the end of next week. > | > | Let's hope the tree is open for 1.4.1 then... > > But it really sh

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Michael> Martin Vermeer wrote: >> Basically it introduces one more position in a paragraph, after the >> last character (i.e., pos = par.size() ) to represent the change >> attached to the paragraph break ("carriage return", which we don'

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | > I am busy right now but I will hopefully find some time for testing by | > | > the end of next week. | > | | > | Let's hop

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:40:11PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > > | > | > I am busy right now but I will hopefully fi

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:40:11PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > |

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... > | > I will create my own personal tree under branches/ farily soon, I'd > | > rather keep my WIP there than on my own disk. > | > > | > branches/developers/larsbj > | > > | >

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > Right. | | We have quite a set of branches already... are they all actual anymore? No. (That was a rhetorical Q right?) |5928 lasgouttJan 09 2003 BRANCH-1_2_X/ |3897 lasgouttApr 04 2002 BRANCH_1_1_6/ | 10803 lasg

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Angus Leeming
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Personal branches should be moved to 'personal'¹ some appropriate > place. > ¹ Or propose abetter name please. How about 'sandbox' since that's what the purpose of these branches will be; to play around in without causing harm to anyone else. -- Angus

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:23PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: >7240 poenitz Jul 04 2003 BRANCH_NOUPDATE/ Could be removed. It basically is in 1.4. Andre'

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:58:43PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > One thing with subversion is that it is a lot easier to use branches, > and they are not slow as in cvs. I will at least create 5-8 branches > for myself. Stuff I work with, ideas, etc. Merging back - and more important - keepi

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-11 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:58:43PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > One thing with subversion is that it is a lot easier to use branches, | > and they are not slow as in cvs. I will at least create 5-8 branches | > for myself. Stuff I work with, ide

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-13 Thread Georg Baum
Martin Vermeer wrote: > We have quite a set of branches already... are they all actual anymore? >9351 baumDec 06 2004 BooktabBranch/ Is a nearly finished implementation of booktabs support in tables and should go into 1.5. >9297 abraunstNov 24 2004 CoordBr

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-18 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:12:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:23PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > >7240 poenitz Jul 04 2003 BRANCH_NOUPDATE/ > > Could be removed. It basically is in 1.4. > > Andre' I removed it. - Martin pgprAz3z1ykhB.pgp Des

Re: [Patch] multi-paragraph change tracking (Re: Baywatch doesn't repond)

2006-02-18 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:12:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: | > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:23PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: | > >7240 poenitz Jul 04 2003 BRANCH_NOUPDATE/ | > | > Could be removed. It basically is in 1.4. | > |