In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 23 May 2005 00:39:07 +0200, Graydon
Hoare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
graydon.hoare> On 5/20/05, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
graydon.hoare>
graydon.hoare> > > Imagine my surprise when the different branches
graydon.hoare> > > weren't connected!
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:39:07AM +0200, Graydon Hoare wrote:
> On 5/20/05, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Err, crud. You're right. I hadn't actually looked at graydon's
> > change yet, thanks for pointing it out... This change is a problem,
> > because it means that we _have_ to
On 5/20/05, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Imagine my surprise when the different branches weren't connected!
> > And I was sure an earlier experiment had handled my branches properly.
I believe they should all be connected at the root (empty revision),
but nowhere else. if they a
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:15:41PM +0800, Matt Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 08:15:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:04:35PM +0800, Matt Johnston wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:41:46PM +0200, Thomas Reitmayr wrote:
> > > > FYI, this happened while pull
[22-05-2005 11:31, Nuno Lucas escreveu]
Btw, i don't have any troubles updating to the org.colinux.stable and
org.colinux.devel branches.
Just to add that I also fail to pull a fresh database from
monotone.colinux.org with 0.19. I can pull the org.colinux.stable and
org.colinux.devel branches,
[22-05-2005 6:55, Nathaniel Smith escreveu]
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 08:15:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
Might this have something to do with the fact that the server is still
running 0.18?
That shouldn't make any difference, in theory.
What about the fact that the "stable" branch is an old b
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:35:37PM +0200, Christof Petig wrote:
> All tests pass with the current candidate
> 463b4f748c4ab4ee9b3a8f1a37ccab1ea84e63cc.
[...]
> If you feel confident about this revision (I did not check _every_ line
> of the merge ...) I propose to put it into mainline (so that the
Emile Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 21:21, Derek Scherger wrote:
>> it seems to me that there are three settings for such a hook
>>
>> - fail on pre-existing files
>> (cvs, svn, etc. do this)
>>
>> - preserve pre-existing files but continue
>> (which I think woul
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 21 May 2005 18:19:36 -0700, Nathaniel
Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
njs> The current policy is:
njs> -- by default, don't touch line endings at all. In fact, don't
njs> touch data at all, we store uninterpreted bytestreams.
Oh, I guess I had misun
