then I suggest adding
the patch to one issue, and list which other issues it fixes. The
issues can also be linked together.
John
- Original Message - From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons Developers List"
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're converging John here,
>
> I'll try to keep up with patches and commits in order for you to become a
> committer.
> Henri, can you please agree that we "try to make jelly enter a maintained
> mode", within a month or
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:05 AM, Russel Winder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:27 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Russel Winder
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think the bulk of this message would have been better off in a new
>> threa
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs.
> Open/FederatedCommons
>
>
> We're converging John here,
>
> I'll try to keep up wi
ad?
John
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons Developers List"
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/FederatedCommons
We're converging John here,
I'll try to
quot;Commons Developers List"
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly still in development vs. Open/
FederatedCommons
John,
Le 10-nov.-08 à 07:11, John Spackman a écrit :
Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept
of DVCS but it wa
John,
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 05:28 +, John Spackman wrote:
[ . . . ]
> I think you're talking about a different "problem" - Jelly is used for far
> more than Ant/Maven replacement (I don't usually use either) and maintaining
> it is not an altruistic choice for me, but a practical one because
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:27 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Russel Winder
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I think the bulk of this message would have been better off in a new
> thread, marked [OT].
Possibly but I didn't think of it. On other lists that would ha
patch submission to JIRA yesterday (with a follow-up in
response to your comments today).
John
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Libbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons Developers List"
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
Subject: Re:
ractical one because I find it
so very useful.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Russel Winder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons Developers List"
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [jelly] Is jelly
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Russel Winder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the bulk of this message would have been better off in a new
thread, marked [OT].
Some of these discussions have been happening at the ASF, on a more
appropriate list whose public archives are here:
http://mail-
John,
Le 10-nov.-08 à 07:11, John Spackman a écrit :
Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept of
DVCS but it was my intention to look at using a DVCS for this.
But DVCS "only" does source code - setting up a seperate branch only
works if the community at large see the
John,
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 06:11 +, John Spackman wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >Isn't this whole Subversion centralism problem solved by using a DVCS
> >such as Bazaar, or Git -- and soon, I gather, Mercurial.
>
> Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept of DVCS
> but it was
Hi Russel,
Forgive me for butting in on a conversation but . . .
Anytime :)
Isn't this whole Subversion centralism problem solved by using a DVCS
such as Bazaar, or Git -- and soon, I gather, Mercurial.
Yes, kind of - I've only recently come across Git and the concept of DVCS
but it was m
14 matches
Mail list logo
