Is there a way to configure where Cadmium puts its cdm.backup directory?
--
meem
___
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:49:45AM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:11:59PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
>
> > I don't have an issue with reworking the way the tools work with the way
> > most people think (I'll miss the quick'n'easy formulation for MQ, but I
> > hope to be mov
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:11:59PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> I don't have an issue with reworking the way the tools work with the way
> most people think (I'll miss the quick'n'easy formulation for MQ, but I
> hope to be moving to pbranch soon, anyway). I just want to make sure that
webrev -p
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:59:06PM -0700, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
> This defers discussion of -r. Like Bill, I think that webrev should
> behave as hg diff. Because, after all, what is webrev, other than a way
> to intuitively display diffs?
To me, it's a way to intuitively display changesets, wh
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:13:56PM -0500, James Carlson wrote:
> The lack of an 'active' file is one of the underlying issues that's
> problematic with hg on a day-to-day usage basis. I really don't like
> futzing with ssh bits and waiting eons to get hg active data.
Hear hear!
I often just run
James Carlson writes:
> Danek Duvall writes:
> > A compromise could be something like this:
> >
> > -r r1 changes from p(r1) to r1
> > -r r1:changes from p(r1) to WD
> > -r r1:r2 changes from p(r1) to r2
>
> I don't see that as a compromise, because, unlike the se
Danek Duvall wrote:
> I'm implementing a -r option to webrev, which, generally, takes a revision
> range and creates the webrev from that range, without going off to the
> parent to figure out what's changed. It would thus also allow you to get
> the webrev of an existing changeset which may or ma
Danek Duvall writes:
> A compromise could be something like this:
>
> -r r1 changes from p(r1) to r1
> -r r1:changes from p(r1) to WD
> -r r1:r2 changes from p(r1) to r2
I don't see that as a compromise, because, unlike the second case, it
still has the expensive
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 11:00 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> Does anyone have any feeling for this? I'm tempted to implement the third
> option, and if people can't seem to figure it out, change it to the second,
> "diff-style" option, and see if it's any better. And that's probably what
> I'll do if
I'm implementing a -r option to webrev, which, generally, takes a revision
range and creates the webrev from that range, without going off to the
parent to figure out what's changed. It would thus also allow you to get
the webrev of an existing changeset which may or may not be common to both
your
10 matches
Mail list logo
