On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> There is one doc in ./doc/manual/en that has a broken revision comment.
> I have not checked any of the other languages, but as EN is the 'master'...
>
> Can you fix this?
There is nothing broken, please read the documentation.
Bastian
There is one doc in ./doc/manual/en that has a broken revision comment.
I have not checked any of the other languages, but as EN is the 'master'...
Can you fix this?
TIA.
$ svn diff -r 11579 using-d-i/using-d-i.xml
Index: using-d-i/using-d-i.xml
==
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> - - I am running Woody, and subversion IS NOT available for Woody. (Oh
>> sure, there is something at backports.org and I'll try and get it from
>> there, but that is not really the Debian way.)
>
> Just build a sa
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> - - I am running Woody, and subversion IS NOT available for Woody. (Oh sure,
> there is something at backports.org and I'll try and get it from there, but
> that is not really the Debian way.)
Just build a sarge chroot to use subversio
Quoting Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> So, in the end, I still think this could have been communicated better.
The move was intended to be smooth, with a time period during which
both cvs and svn could be used.
However, it appeared that Joshua Kwan tentative for having
synchronisation between
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First of all, thank you for your reaction.
On Sunday 21 March 2004 14:43, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> This move has been announced a couple of months ago. It has been clear,
> that it will
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> - - The implementation has followed the announcement of intent by less than a
> day, so no time has been given to express views about the move (much less to
> consider the implications).
This move has been announced a couple of mon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 21 March 2004 05:38, Joshua Kwan wrote:
>
> First of all, is anybody strongly opposed to this? Second, if not, when
> would be the best day for everyone for this to be done? It obviously
> puts a crimp in our work because the repository has t
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 01:38:28PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> CVS and SVN $Id$ keywords are different in doc/manual/en/* files, how
> will you handle them?
-
+
The date format is somehow more standard, but I propose to use the
LastChangedRevision keyword.
> Anyway having 2 writeable repositor
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 01:08:40AM -0800, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I realized it would be a bit rash to switch over right away, so I've
> snapshotted a local copy of CVS as it stands and I will come up with a way
> to keep both Subversion and CVS in sync for a week. So you may commit to
>
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:05:45AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> GNU Arch would it made easy to avoid a single point of failure
> like one single repostory server.
And is pretty unusable for repositories which this count of different
subprojects.
Bastian
--
There are certain things men must do
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 01:08:40AM -0800, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> The amount of time this will exist for depends on how many people still
> continue committing to CVS after the SVN->CVS gateway is complete :)
svn2cvs.pl blocks, I disabled them and locked the cvs repository.
Bastian
--
Knowledge, s
Quoting Joshua Kwan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi all,
>
> I realized it would be a bit rash to switch over right away, so I've
> snapshotted a local copy of CVS as it stands and I will come up with a way
> to keep both Subversion and CVS in sync for a week. So you may commit to
> both CVS and Subvers
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 01:08:40AM -0800, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> I realized it would be a bit rash to switch over right away, so I've
> snapshotted a local copy of CVS as it stands and I will come up with a way
> to keep both Subversion and CVS in sync for a week. So you may commit to
> both CVS and
Quoting Joshua Kwan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi all,
>
> I realized it would be a bit rash to switch over right away, so I've
> snapshotted a local copy of CVS as it stands and I will come up with a way
> to keep both Subversion and CVS in sync for a week. So you may commit to
> both CVS and Subvers
Quoting Geert Stappers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> GNU Arch would it made easy to avoid a single point of failure
> like one single repostory server.
As far as I have read arch is completely different syntax than CVS or
SVN
A CVS->SVN move has the advantage of not requiring a very important
knwol
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:46:02AM -0500, Dan Weber wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:38:29PM -0800, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Joey and I are interested in converting our CVS repository for
> > debian-installer to a Subversion repository, for more robust work while
> > offline, the
[Joshua Kwan]
> First of all, is anybody strongly opposed to this? Second, if not,
> when would be the best day for everyone for this to be done? It
> obviously puts a crimp in our work because the repository has to be
> locked while the conversion occurs.
Eh, I got lots of work in progress change
Get it over with now. Switch tomorrow!
-- Dan Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:38:29PM -0800, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Joey and I are interested in converting our CVS repository for
> debian-installer to a Subversion repository, for more robust work while
> offline,
19 matches
Mail list logo
