On Tuesday 08 May 2007 21:29, you wrote:
> On 5/8/07, scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up
> > to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra
> > that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 7
On 5/8/07, scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to
7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had
to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something
now i've got the beta i fe
scott wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 15:32, you wrote:
Mr Toothpik wrote:
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me
up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something
extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a
directory or someth
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 15:32, you wrote:
> Mr Toothpik wrote:
> > i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me
> > up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something
> > extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a
> > directory or somet
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:50:36PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote:
The SVN Repos has conflict markers left in the file filetype.vim,
Sorry for the silly question, but the answer is not clear to me from
your text: is your working copy that has conflict markers or the
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:50:36PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote:
> The SVN Repos has conflict markers left in the file filetype.vim,
Sorry for the silly question, but the answer is not clear to me from
your text: is your working copy that has conflict markers or the last
committed version in the repos
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Mr Toothpik wrote:
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me
up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something
extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a
directory or something
now i've got the beta i
Mr Toothpik wrote:
> i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me
> up to 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something
> extra that had to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a
> directory or something
>
> now i've got the beta i feel committed,
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 12:04, you wrote:
> Edward L. Fox wrote:
> > On 5/8/07, scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me
> >> up to
> >> 7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra
> >> that had
> >> to be don
Edward L. Fox wrote:
On 5/8/07, scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me
up to
7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra
that had
to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something
no
On 5/8/07, scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to
7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had
to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something
now i've got the beta i fe
i was surpised by the fact that simply running 'svn update' bumped me up to
7.1a -- from previous posts i had thought there was something extra that had
to be done to get the beta, like create a new 71a directory or something
now i've got the beta i feel committed, and will commence chasing afte
12 matches
Mail list logo
