Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-31 Thread Eric Blake
On 12/28/2012 04:45 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Sure thing, I also rebased them while at it... >> >> ...but forgot the script-version. v4 coming up. >> >> Sorry for the noise. > > But sent the wrong patch anyway and also omitted the subject. > > *blush* > > v5 coming up. Ugg, I saw v4 and pushed

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-28 Thread Peter Rosin
>> Sure thing, I also rebased them while at it... > > ...but forgot the script-version. v4 coming up. > > Sorry for the noise. But sent the wrong patch anyway and also omitted the subject. *blush* v5 coming up. Cheers, Peter

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-28 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2012-12-28 02:35, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 12/27/2012 03:41 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> If it helps I can regenerate with your redirection fix, but I assume >> whoever commits it can fix that part easily enough. Just let me know. > > How about if you do that, and we give Eric and/or others a week

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-27 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012, Peter Rosin wrote: Libtool remains regressed and a PITA to work with for me until this is fixed. I'm a bit frustrated since the changes are tiny and non-intrusive, at least in my opinion. I also find the extra dependencies to be frustrating. In my case, I check out and d

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-27 Thread Paul Eggert
On 12/27/2012 03:41 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: If it helps I can regenerate with your redirection fix, but I assume whoever commits it can fix that part easily enough. Just let me know. How about if you do that, and we give Eric and/or others a week or two to comment, and if there's no objection t

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-27 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2012-12-24 03:05, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/29/2012 11:12 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> This seems to be stalled because of a misconception. Can I please get >> a second opinion? Please? > > I'm afraid I don't understand the problem well enough to offer > an opinion -- maybe it's because I don't u

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-12-23 Thread Paul Eggert
On 11/29/2012 11:12 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: This seems to be stalled because of a misconception. Can I please get a second opinion? Please? I'm afraid I don't understand the problem well enough to offer an opinion -- maybe it's because I don't understand the desire to do maintenance without git

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-11-29 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2012-11-13 15:32, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2012-10-18 15:56, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi Eric! >> >> On 2012-10-18 15:02, Eric Blake wrote: >>> [adding-gnulib] >> >> I'm not subscribed, please (continue to) keep me in CC. >> >>> On 10/18/2012 06:50 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: Hi! I used to

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-11-13 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2012-10-18 15:56, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Eric! > > On 2012-10-18 15:02, Eric Blake wrote: >> [adding-gnulib] > > I'm not subscribed, please (continue to) keep me in CC. > >> On 10/18/2012 06:50 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> I used to use a libtool git checkout from a platform that l

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-10-18 Thread Peter Rosin
Hi Eric! On 2012-10-18 15:02, Eric Blake wrote: > [adding-gnulib] I'm not subscribed, please (continue to) keep me in CC. > On 10/18/2012 06:50 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I used to use a libtool git checkout from a platform that lacks >> git [MSYS], but that broke at some point. I would

Re: git-version-gen w/o git

2012-10-18 Thread Eric Blake
[adding-gnulib] On 10/18/2012 06:50 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi! > > I used to use a libtool git checkout from a platform that lacks > git [MSYS], but that broke at some point. I would like something > like the below to unbreak my work flow. > > Please? > > Cheers, > Peter > > diff --git a/Mak