I was wondering whether it is better to submit patches as bug reports
on the savannah system, or just in e-mail to the mailing list. Is
there a preference?
My most recent patch deals with performance improvement on doing
pulls, in particular it dramatically (73.5x) reduces the CPU usage on
the
Mark Hagger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been looking quite hard at various SCM's with a view to switching
from CVS. CVS is slowly, but surely, becoming less and less fitting for
our needs.
[...] how stable/reliable is monotone?
You didn't write what these needs are exactly. I've found
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04 Jun 2005 22:08:56 +0200, Willem Rein
Oudshoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
woudshoo Now we plan using certificates heavily, for example:
woudshoo
woudshoo Version: 1.2.0.3
woudshoo Build:machine xxx: passed|failed
woudshoo Build arguments: special compiler
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 17:53 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
I'm attempting to give people a clean way to mark a revision as
no-longer-a-head-for-branch-X. There are two use cases for a feature
like this one:
1) To ignore old branches which have subsequently been merged into the
mainline.
2)
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:23:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04 Jun 2005 22:08:56 +0200, Willem Rein
Oudshoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
woudshoo Use case I - Discard work
woudshoo .
woudshoo
woudshoo I have
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm attempting to give people a clean way to mark a revision as
no-longer-a-head-for-branch-X. There are two use cases for a feature
like this one:
1) To ignore old branches which have subsequently been merged into the
mainline.
2) To mark
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In discussions on IRC, we decided to try to implement at least the
first case with a new certificate type, tentatively named a
prune-branch certificate by dscherger.
Oh one minor note, because the certificate says do not consider
this revision a head
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:23:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
An option is to use disapprove on B. This creates a new revision
(direkt child of B) containing the anti-patch of B, and you can
continue from there:
A
|
B
|
Bd
|
C
And if you decide that B
