Vladimir Marek wrote:
>> There are much better and more reliable tools for determining which
>> revision of a particular binary you have than source keywords. They
>> include (either on their own or in combination) but are not limited to:
>> pkgchk, pkg(5) [IPS], digest, md5sum, bart, showrev,
Shawn M Emery wrote:
> In the near future it would be nice to have some form of keyword
> expansion whether in one form or another. If everyone is in agreement
> then we may want to consider the keyword extension for mercurial which
> allows fairly easy interface to expand and contract keywords
richlowe at richlowe.net writes:
> Author: Richard Lowe
> Repository: /hg/scm-migration/cadtest
> Latest revision: 32281d00f36ed5b44643b38dc8c1cc1c0d389600
> Total changesets: 1
> Log message:
> 478 Mercurial 1.0 should be the one true mercurial
>
That's only the cadtest half obviously, and I as
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Darren Moffat wrote:
> James C. McPherson wrote:
> > Shawn M Emery wrote:
> >> In the near future it would be nice to have some form of keyword
> >> expansion whether in one form or another. If everyone is in agreement
> >> then we may want to consider t
se I'm not pushing anyone to do that. I'm just providing them
with the rope they want.
--
Vlad
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/scm-migration-dev/attachments/20080703/86c83fc1/attachment.bin>
s
obvious which is older. While looking at node it's it is not, and you
have to have workspace ready (maybe it's possible to find via web
interface, I don't know).
Thank you
--
Vlad
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/scm-migration-dev/attachments/20080703/aeb866b0/attachment.bin>
Author: Richard Lowe
Repository: /hg/scm-migration/cadtest
Latest revision: 32281d00f36ed5b44643b38dc8c1cc1c0d389600
Total changesets: 1
Log message:
478 Mercurial 1.0 should be the one true mercurial
Files:
create: .hgignore
create: usr/src/suites/cadtest/tst/active-list/tst.chmo
Vladimir Marek wrote:
>> There are much better and more reliable tools for determining which
>> revision of a particular binary you have than source keywords. They
>> include (either on their own or in combination) but are not limited to:
>> pkgchk, pkg(5) [IPS], digest, md5sum, bart, showrev,
e
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/scm-migration-dev/attachments/20080703/072681e4/attachment.bin>
James C. McPherson wrote:
> Shawn M Emery wrote:
>> In the near future it would be nice to have some form of keyword
>> expansion whether in one form or another. If everyone is in agreement
>> then we may want to consider the keyword extension for mercurial which
>> allows fairly easy interface
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, James Carlson wrote:
> Valerie Bubb Fenwick writes:
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Will Fiveash wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 09:46:11AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
For now, until the transition, leave them in place as they are, and do
*NOT* build any code that relies o
Hey all,
In going through the code review comments regarding cdm, I've been
looking at making the error messages from tagchk and branchchk more
informative as far as what the user should do next.
In doing this, I notice that large parts of branchchk are either
redundant, or mis-ordered.
I have
In the near future it would be nice to have some form of keyword
expansion whether in one form or another. If everyone is in agreement
then we may want to consider the keyword extension for mercurial which
allows fairly easy interface to expand and contract keywords:
http://www.selenic.com/me
13 matches
Mail list logo
