]] Dmitrijs Ledkovs
| 2009/2/15 Gunnar Wolf
| >
| > Tollef Fog Heen dijo [Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 06:42:37PM +0100]:
| > > | when i've had to do this in the past i think i did something like
| > > | ~.git.. this way you get lots of relevant info,
the
| > > | fact that it's a prerelease of , the d
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 20:02:09 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Tino Keitel (16/02/2009):
> > could it be that there is some limitation in the number of
> > files/directories? It only shows 80 directories here in the tree
> > view, but 173 are present.
>
> Maybe a bunch of them are empty, which
Tino Keitel (16/02/2009):
> could it be that there is some limitation in the number of
> files/directories? It only shows 80 directories here in the tree
> view, but 173 are present.
Maybe a bunch of them are empty, which means they are of no interest
from a git point of view? (IOW: where can on
Hi,
could it be that there is some limitation in the number of
files/directories? It only shows 80 directories here in the tree view,
but 173 are present.
Regards,
Tino
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas.
* Jonny Lamb [Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:03:51 +]:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 16:25:41 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Do you have binary packages anywhere? I'd like to give it a try without
> > having to compile it.
> Sure. I threw some i386 and amd64 packages here:
> http://people.debian.org/~jonny/gi
2009/2/15 Gunnar Wolf
>
> Tollef Fog Heen dijo [Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 06:42:37PM +0100]:
> > | when i've had to do this in the past i think i did something like
> > | ~.git.. this way you get lots of relevant info, the
> > | fact that it's a prerelease of , the date the snapshot was taken,
> > | t
Tollef Fog Heen dijo [Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 06:42:37PM +0100]:
> | when i've had to do this in the past i think i did something like
> | ~.git.. this way you get lots of relevant info, the
> | fact that it's a prerelease of , the date the snapshot was taken,
> | the fact that it's a git snapshot, a
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 15:34 +0100, sean finney wrote:
> hiya,
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:20:44AM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:17:42 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >
> > > * Jonny Lamb [Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:41:46 +]:
> > >
> > > > Version : 0.0.0+git+37ec
On Sat, Feb 14, 16:25:41 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Do you have binary packages anywhere? I'd like to give it a try without
> having to compile it.
Sure. I threw some i386 and amd64 packages here:
http://people.debian.org/~jonny/gitg/
--
Jonny Lamb, UK
jo...@debian.org
signature.asc
De
]] sean finney
| when i've had to do this in the past i think i did something like
| ~.git.. this way you get lots of relevant info, the
| fact that it's a prerelease of , the date the snapshot was taken,
| the fact that it's a git snapshot, and the sha sum. and of course it's
| sortable.
If
* Jonny Lamb [Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:55:42 +]:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 08:12:45 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > Is it stable enough, even for unstable? :)
> I've been using it for a little while and I think so, yes.
Do you have binary packages anywhere? I'd like to give it a try without
having to com
On Sat, Feb 14, 11:17:42 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I don't know what your further plans of versioning are for Git snapshot
> (incrementing the micro release number?), but I thought I'd point out
> that SHA1 are not sensibly sortable, just in case.
Right. I suspect some releases will start popp
On Sat, Feb 14, 08:12:45 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> Is it stable enough, even for unstable? :)
I've been using it for a little while and I think so, yes.
--
Jonny Lamb, UK
jo...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
hiya,
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:20:44AM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:17:42 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
> > * Jonny Lamb [Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:41:46 +]:
> >
> > > Version : 0.0.0+git+37ec0c
> >
> > I don't know what your further plans of versioning are for
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:17:42 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Jonny Lamb [Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:41:46 +]:
>
> > Version : 0.0.0+git+37ec0c
>
> I don't know what your further plans of versioning are for Git snapshot
> (incrementing the micro release number?), but I thought I'd point ou
* Jonny Lamb [Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:41:46 +]:
> Version : 0.0.0+git+37ec0c
I don't know what your further plans of versioning are for Git snapshot
(incrementing the micro release number?), but I thought I'd point out
that SHA1 are not sensibly sortable, just in case.
Cheers,
--
Ade
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:41:46 +, Jonny Lamb wrote:
> * Package name: gitg
> Version : 0.0.0+git+37ec0c
Is it stable enough, even for unstable? :)
David
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonny Lamb
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: gitg
Version : 0.0.0+git+37ec0c
Upstream Author : Jesse van den Kieboom
* URL : http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gitg/
* License : GPLv2
Description :
18 matches
Mail list logo
