Hi all,
Since subversion moved to breaburn.macports.org, I have had serious issues
connecting. Here is the record:
1) Success r154111
2) A few minutes later while attempting to commit octave-image
neptune:dports marius$ svn ci -m "octave-image: update to version 2.6.1."
svn: E170013: Commit
> On Oct 23, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Fred Wright wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Clemens Lang wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:25:52AM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed it for Trac (which isn't a complete improvement *). I'm not
>>> aware that git allows
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:25:52AM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> > I noticed it for Trac (which isn't a complete improvement *). I'm not
> > aware that git allows pulling only changes to a single subdirectory
> > like svn does (svn up in a port dir.
HI
Sorry to clutter the list but emails have bounced three times now (Host not
found) trying to reply to pixilla:
Bradley:
Ticket is:
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52144
I don’t have a current diff either.
Craig
(Do you have another email address that I can try?)
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 08:00:25PM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> I meant my local copy evidently which I'll most like keep in
> sources.conf and update from the new git working copy. If the svn
> history is migrated to github I'll be able to delete the .svn
> directory.
Sorry, I was assuming
On Sunday October 23 2016 18:20:06 Clemens Lang wrote:
Hi,
> > Thanks for the archive links. A quick scan suggests that my "shadow"
> > tree I referred to will be a new working copy of the git repo, from
> > where I'll filter things into the current svn tree.
>
> There will be no svn tree in a
> On Oct 23, 2016, at 10:21 AM, vi...@macports.org wrote:
>
> Revision
> 154177
> Author
> vi...@macports.org
> Date
> 2016-10-23 17:21:28 +0200 (Sun, 23 Oct 2016)
> Log Message
>
> py-spatialite: get rid of obsolete API “amalgamation”
> Modified:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 06:01:13PM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Thanks for the archive links. A quick scan suggests that my "shadow"
> tree I referred to will be a new working copy of the git repo, from
> where I'll filter things into the current svn tree.
There will be no svn tree in a
On Sunday October 23 2016 17:43:56 Clemens Lang wrote:
Thanks for the archive links. A quick scan suggests that my "shadow" tree I
referred to will be a new working copy of the git repo, from where I'll filter
things into the current svn tree.
Will the migration conserve the full history?
>
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:01:08PM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Apparently not, were they sent on this ML? If so I must have applied
> too strict filters (basically "don't send list messages and don't
> filter copies sent to my own address" ...)
On Sunday October 23 2016 16:04:07 Clemens Lang wrote:
> Yes, SVN is being retired completely. Have you not read the announcement
> emails?
Apparently not, were they sent on this ML? If so I must have applied too strict
filters (basically "don't send list messages and don't filter copies sent
> On Oct 23, 2016, at 5:25 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>> On Sunday October 23 2016 02:21:02 Marko Käning wrote:
>>
>> I guess we can wait committing those once the new GitHub workflow is
>> in place, because it would make reviewing all the changes much
>> easier in a
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:25:52AM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> SVN is being retired completely?
Yes, SVN is being retired completely. Have you not read the announcement
emails?
> I noticed it for Trac (which isn't a complete improvement *). I'm not
> aware that git allows pulling only
> On Oct 23, 2016, at 3:59 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>
> So... you are saying you would take these collections, and instead of
> grouping them together scatter them around in the other directories,
> like 'science' etc., depending on what sort of functionality they
>
On Sunday October 23 2016 02:21:02 Marko Käning wrote:
>> I should have another look at exactly how the mainstream *Qmake5* PortGroup
>> interacts with port:qt5-kde .
>
>Could you investigate this further in the meantime?
Done. There are some differences in the way port:qt5 and port:qt5-kde
On Sunday October 23 2016 02:08:23 Marko Käning wrote:
Hi,
>just like all those port files belonging to KDE 3 and 4?
>
>We’re not opposed to do the latter, but it will be somewhat messier!
"We" being Marko and I, but being the main (as in most active) maintainer I
have a strong preference for
On 23 Oct 2016, at 3:14 am, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Marko Käning wrote:
>>
>> in the light of the upcoming commit of the new 'qt5-kde' port I want
>> to ask (again) whether it would be acceptable, that we - for
17 matches
Mail list logo