On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 16:21 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > Well, that's obvious - because it is not in the patch. When I submit a
> > patch am I supposed to post diff containg all my changes ?
>
> If they are related to the patch that would be c
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 16:21 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> Well, that's obvious - because it is not in the patch. When I submit a
> patch am I supposed to post diff containg all my changes ?
If they are related to the patch that would be convenient IMO. It avoids
questions whether you int
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 12:06 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Roland Illig wrote:
> > > You forgot to change the documentation in doc/mc.1.in. Besides that, it
> > > looks fine.
> >
> > Are you sure that I didn't change it ?
>
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 12:06 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Roland Illig wrote:
> > You forgot to change the documentation in doc/mc.1.in. Besides that, it
> > looks fine.
>
> Are you sure that I didn't change it ?
? There's nothing in the patch that I can see...
Leo
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Roland Illig wrote:
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
The patch is pretty simple. Comments, etc are much appreciated.
You forgot to change the documentation in doc/mc.1.in. Besides that, it
looks fine.
Are you sure that I didn't change it ?
From what I can r
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Roland Illig wrote:
> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > The patch is pretty simple. Comments, etc are much appreciated.
>
> You forgot to change the documentation in doc/mc.1.in. Besides that, it
> looks fine.
Are you sure that I didn't change it ?
_
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
The patch is pretty simple. Comments, etc are much appreciated.
You forgot to change the documentation in doc/mc.1.in. Besides that, it
looks fine.
Roland
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
