Using the suggestion from FS#10905, use 'svn info' rather than 'svn log' to
get the current revision number, which is much quicker for large Subversion
repositories. Eventually git will rule the world. :)
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
scripts/makepkg.sh.in |2 +-
1 files ch
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using the suggestion from FS#10905, use 'svn info' rather than 'svn log' to
> get the current revision number, which is much quicker for large Subversion
> repositories. Eventually git will rule the world. :)
>
> Signed-off-by:
Dan McGee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Using the suggestion from FS#10905, use 'svn info' rather than 'svn log' to
>> get the current revision number, which is much quicker for large Subversion
>> repositories. Eventually git will rule the w
Allan McRae wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Using the suggestion from FS#10905, use 'svn info' rather than 'svn log' to
>>> get the current revision number, which is much quicker for large Subversion
>>> repositories. Even
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Allan McRae wrote:
>> Dan McGee wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Using the suggestion from FS#10905, use 'svn info' rather than 'svn log' to
get the current revision nu
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a filtered output of git grep LC_ALL :
>>
>> contrib/bacman:echo "# $(LC_ALL=C date)">> .PKGINFO
> This one should probably change to match makepkg anyway...
>
>> doc/makepkg.8.txt:seeking help or for ot
Dan McGee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Allan McRae wrote:
>>
>>> Dan McGee wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using the suggestion from FS#10905, use 'svn i
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Allan McRae wrote:
>>>
Dan McGee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Dan McGee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dan McGee wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Allan McRae wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>
>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More google searching on this and requiring to correct my previous
> assertions... "LC_ALL=C" is equivalent to "LC_ALL=POSIX". Just using
> "LC_ALL=" does require "LANG=" as if LC_ALL is unset it then looks at
> the LANG v
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More google searching on this and requiring to correct my previous
>> assertions... "LC_ALL=C" is equivalent to "LC_ALL=POSIX". Just using
>> "LC_ALL="
Dan McGee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> More google searching on this and requiring to correct my previous
>>> assertions... "LC_ALL=C" is equivalent to "LC_AL
12 matches
Mail list logo