* Andrew Borodin schrieb:
> And now my questions to you:
>
> 1775_mvfs_9P
> 1775_mvfs_9P_2
> 1775_mvfs_9P_3
> DEV_mvfs_fish
> DEV_mvfs_local
> METUX.mvfs
Work in progress. I'll assign it to proper ticket when it passed
test cycles.
> WTF? Why you created a lot of branches about your mvfs stuf
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:09:08 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> there seem to be some old leftover branches:
>
> 1823_prev_line_def
Ticket is not closed yet.
> 1897_libc_return_values
Removed.
> should they get removed ?
And now my questions to you:
1775_mvfs_9P
1775_mvfs_9P_2
1775_mvfs_9P_
Hi folks,
there seem to be some old leftover branches:
1823_prev_line_def
1897_libc_return_values
should they get removed ?
cu
--
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone: +49 36207 51993
* Sergei Trofimovich schrieb:
> Latest and greatest ebuilds do not have any patches, as they all are in
> upstream. So technically gentoo does not maintain local patches at all
> (there is no even single sed call). MC team does all maintenance for them
> and issues monthly releases. I find it goo
