David Fetter writes:
> -} elsif ($minor eq "devel") {
> -$dotneeded = 0;
> -$numericminor = 0;
> -} elsif ($minor =~ m/^alpha\d+$/) {
> -$dotneeded = 0;
> -$numericminor = 0;
> -} elsif ($minor =~ m/^beta\d+$/) {
> -$dotneeded = 0;
> -$numericminor = 0;
> -} elsif ($minor =
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:39:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> David, I am sorry this didn't get applied, and the code has drifted too
> much to apply it now. Would you be able to make a new patch to make our
> Perl files strict?
Please find updated patch attached. It passes strict, warning
David, I am sorry this didn't get applied, and the code has drifted too
much to apply it now. Would you be able to make a new patch to make our
Perl files strict?
---
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:04:18PM
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:04:18PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Here is a diff of version_stamp.pl. It is not quite done as I can't
>> actually get it to run. No matter what I do it doesn't appear to be able
>> to open configure.in.
>>
>> If someone coul
Hi,
Le 8 mai 09 à 23:50, Tom Lane a écrit :
mmm ... I've recently been forced into using git for another project,
and I find myself mystified as to why anyone would want to use it.
Seems like baroqueness and unexpected behaviors are all over the
thing.
As a user of darcs I've been reacting i
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
Here is a diff of version_stamp.pl. It is not quite done as I can't
actually get it to run. No matter what I do it doesn't appear to be able
to open configure.in.
If someone could help me figure out where I am being stupid I would
appreciate it.
Maybe you
On May 8, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
(You can't be serious that for reverting a WC file to the repository
state you use "git checkout"?)
Why not? The purpose of the operation is to get a file from the
repository.
It's not much different whether you do it the first or the seco
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>> Yes I apologize for that. Git reacted differently than I expected to a
>> "git diff". I have since reposted a proper patch.
>
> mmm ... I've recently been forced into using git for another project,
> and I find myself
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi Alvaro,
>>
>> On 05/09/2009 12:26 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Perhaps a more difficult problem is that there is no easy way to update
a single file within a git repo. In cvs or svn, if I blow something up
>>
On Saturday 09 May 2009 01:41:20 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> (You can't be serious that for reverting a WC file to the repository
> state you use "git checkout"?)
Why not? The purpose of the operation is to get a file from the repository.
It's not much different whether you do it the first or the s
Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> On 05/09/2009 12:26 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Perhaps a more difficult problem is that there is no easy way to update
>>> a single file within a git repo. In cvs or svn, if I blow something up
>>> on a particular file and I just want to take a fresh look, I
Hi Alvaro,
On 05/09/2009 12:26 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Perhaps a more difficult problem is that there is no easy way to update
a single file within a git repo. In cvs or svn, if I blow something up
on a particular file and I just want to take a fresh look, I just rm;svn
update.
Hmm, you shoul
Hi Joshua,
On 05/09/2009 12:22 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Obviously, an unchecked cvs diff would have produced the same garbage. Any
other problems?
There are a number of conceptual differences. For example as a majority
svn user, svn diff does not act the way git diff does. In that svn diff
w
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Perhaps a more difficult problem is that there is no easy way to update
> a single file within a git repo. In cvs or svn, if I blow something up
> on a particular file and I just want to take a fresh look, I just rm;svn
> update.
Hmm, you should use "git revert" for that
On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 01:18 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:50:28 Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > > Yes I apologize for that. Git reacted differently than I expected to a
> > > "git diff". I have since reposted a proper patch.
> >
> > mmm ... I've rece
On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:50:28 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > Yes I apologize for that. Git reacted differently than I expected to a
> > "git diff". I have since reposted a proper patch.
>
> mmm ... I've recently been forced into using git for another project,
> and I find mysel
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> Yes I apologize for that. Git reacted differently than I expected to a
> "git diff". I have since reposted a proper patch.
mmm ... I've recently been forced into using git for another project,
and I find myself mystified as to why anyone would want to use it.
Seems lik
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > Here is a diff of version_stamp.pl.
>
> ... and nearly a megabyte of irrelevant junk. Please take a closer look at
> what you're sending before you send it ...
Never mind on this. I have obviously not re-honed my
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > Here is a diff of version_stamp.pl.
>
> ... and nearly a megabyte of irrelevant junk. Please take a closer look at
> what you're sending before you send it ...
Yes I apologize for that. Git reacted differently th
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 14:16 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is a diff of version_stamp.pl. It is not quite done as I can't
> actually get it to run. No matter what I do it doesn't appear to be able
> to open configure.in.
>
> If someone could help me figure out where I am being st
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> Here is a diff of version_stamp.pl.
... and nearly a megabyte of irrelevant junk. Please take a closer look at
what you're sending before you send it ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
21 matches
Mail list logo
