I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Can you post an updated RFC that incorporates the responses to my and
> Stefan's comments so far?
BTW, the reason I ask is that I hope to make time to comment on it more
extensively in the next few days, and don't want to do that against an
obsolete version!
- Julian
> > Ed wrote:
> > > Btw, regarding the RFC I submitted. Was I supposed to send it as
> > > a diff, or a text file? (I realize it is a moot point right now,
> > > but for future reference, I think it would be nice to get this
> > > clarified. :)).
As we don't have a base version in the repositor
On Fri, 2010-01-22, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> Hi Stefan!
>
> Some comments inline and at the end an attempt to show the options given
> in the tree conflict resolver.
Hi Daniel.
Can you insert a "Terminology" section that says "In this document,
WORKING means the user's version, which possibly has
Hello Ed!
Ed wrote:
Is my spec similar to yours? With Bert's comments in mind, the
current spec should be changed to reflect that if the mtime property
doesn't exist then svn shouldn't even bother with adding it.
Well, a few rounds of discussion more and we'll end up with my
implementation,
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Rowell [mailto:geoff.row...@gmail.com]
> Sent: zaterdag 6 februari 2010 14:26
> To: Ed
> Cc: Philipp Marek; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] MTime functional specifications (v2.0)
> >
> > I still feel that if this specification goes through
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Ed wrote:
> Philipp Marek wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ed!
>>
>> On Freitag, 5. Februar 2010, Ed wrote:
>>>
>>> As usual, thanks for the prompt comments.
>>
>> I think I have to apologize - I seem to cause confusion.
>
> No. No need for apologies. Just my tendency to be
> co
6 matches
Mail list logo
