On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 16:05 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du jeudi 13 mars 2008, vers 20:00, Russ
> Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
>
> > (I *have* heard of architectures in common use where a pointer to data
> > is a different size than a pointer to a
On Sat March 15 2008 08:05:19 Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du jeudi 13 mars 2008, vers 20:00, Russ
>
> Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
> > (I *have* heard of architectures in common use where a pointer to data
> > is a different size than a pointer to a functi
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du jeudi 13 mars 2008, vers 20:00, Russ
Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
> (I *have* heard of architectures in common use where a pointer to data
> is a different size than a pointer to a function, but function
> pointers are very rarely passed to variad
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know if there are any plausible machines out there where int*'s
> and char*'s have different representations but in fact just the other
> day I was having a conversation about how on certain weird ARMish chips
> (where pointers address words, not b
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 01:12:41PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * John Goerzen:
> >> Some of the official, published GIT trees are constantly rebased.
> >> Apparently, the rule is not set in stone.
> > Which ones?
> The pu and (less often) the next branches in the main GIT repository.
Right,
* John Goerzen:
>> Some of the official, published GIT trees are constantly rebased.
>> Apparently, the rule is not set in stone.
>
> Which ones?
The pu and (less often) the next branches in the main GIT repository.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On Wednesday 12 March 2008 3:35:56 pm Florian Weimer wrote:
> * John Goerzen:
> > What is it that people don't get from git-rebase(1)?
> >
> >When you rebase a branch, you are changing its history in a way
> > that will cause problems for anyone who already has a copy of the branch
> > in t
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: dpkg with triggers support (again)"):
> I don't claim that it doesn't matter because it works fine on all current
> Debian platforms. I claim that it doesn't matter because it works fine on
> all platforms that Samba has been ported
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:39:10AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 12-Mar-08, 04:21 (CDT), Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yay for portability: many compilers don't support forward static prototypes
> > properly. And then we hear about using (char *)0 instead of NULL for
> > port
* John Goerzen:
> What is it that people don't get from git-rebase(1)?
>
>When you rebase a branch, you are changing its history in a way that
>will cause problems for anyone who already has a copy of the branch in
>their repository and tries to pull updates from you. You s
On 12-Mar-08, 04:21 (CDT), Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yay for portability: many compilers don't support forward static prototypes
> properly. And then we hear about using (char *)0 instead of NULL for
> portability reasons,
As has been explained, the problem is not replacing "0"
On Wed March 12 2008 02:21:24 Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=122fdc0fa5fe90a7d5f6919f2d3177fd0830c360
>
> Code has been refactored in a generic module to deal with usages and
> so on. The functions aren't static anymore, because they *do* have a
>
On mar, mar 11, 2008 at 09:41:57 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [2] His most recent commit is 402 diff lines of stuff like this:
> -static void usage(void) {
> +void
> +usage(void)
> +{
You know what you're doing is FUD from the worst kind ?
On mar, mar 11, 2008 at 11:37:22 +, John Go
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008 4:41:57 pm Ian Jackson wrote:
> > He is polishing revision logs by rebasing changes, reorganising
> > commits into a different order, moving code between files,
> > gratuitously reformatting[2], etc.
>
> What is it that people don
On Tuesday 11 March 2008 4:41:57 pm Ian Jackson wrote:
> Meanwhile I see that Guillem is hard at work making future merges more
> difficult.
>
> He is polishing revision logs by rebasing changes, reorganising
> commits into a different order, moving code between files,
> gratuitously reformatting[
Anthony Towns writes:
> Beyond that, any additional uploads of dpkg will be REJECTed
Therefore dpkg 1.15.2 is now available here, as sources and i386
binaries - a complete upload ready to go into sid:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/dpkg/
Thanks to the miracle of using git properly, I am
16 matches
Mail list logo
