On 26.02.2013 10:54, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 02/14/2013 10:23 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 15.02.2013 04:19, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> and IMHO a resolution to the "deprecate Berkeley DB" discussion.
> My current thoughts on this can be summarized like so:
>
> * The appropriate time to stop sup
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> (Stefan - If you don't have time to read all this please at least take
> a look at the short questions at the very end)
>
No worries :) Thanks for digging into this problem.
General remark: I'm working at and committing from my
Ubuntu 12.04
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Mark Phippard
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, how are you managing your branch? I tried merging it back to
>> trunk to get an idea on the diff and there were a lot of text and tree
>> conflicts. I thought I had seen you doing synch merges from trunk
(Stefan - If you don't have time to read all this please at least take
a look at the short questions at the very end)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> BTW, how are you managing your branch? I tried merging it back to
> trunk to get an idea on the diff and there were a lo
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:17:36 -0800
Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> > (Simply uncommenting now would change the test case and could make
> > the new runs too different from the old runs, decreasing quality of
> > comparison. So it needs some checking and
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> (Simply uncommenting now would change the test case and could make the
> new runs too different from the old runs, decreasing quality of
> comparison. So it needs some checking and decisions too.)
Maybe duplicate the copy test with a differe
vijay wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2013 11:10 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> @@ -439,14 +442,23 @@
>>>
>>> /* write out the revision */
>>> /* Revision is written out in the following cases:
>>> - 1. No --drop-empty-revs has been supplied.
>>> - 2. --drop-empty-revs has b
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:42:53 +
Philip Martin wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:09:55 +:
> >> Neels Hofmeyr writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:04:05 +0200
> >> > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> /usr/local/serf-current was s
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:09:55 +:
>> Neels Hofmeyr writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:04:05 +0200
>> > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> >
>> >> /usr/local/serf-current was serf-1.2.x-r1707. I've installed 1.2.0
>> >> and updated the self-current sy
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:09:55 +:
> Neels Hofmeyr writes:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:04:05 +0200
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
> >> /usr/local/serf-current was serf-1.2.x-r1707. I've installed 1.2.0
> >> and updated the self-current symlink accordingly.
> >
> > No, th
Neels Hofmeyr writes:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:04:05 +0200
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
>> /usr/local/serf-current was serf-1.2.x-r1707. I've installed 1.2.0
>> and updated the self-current symlink accordingly.
>
> No, the build has its own source trees. You know, it's one of those
> "complete" bui
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 11:10 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
@@ -439,14 +442,23 @@
/* write out the revision */
/* Revision is written out in the following cases:
- 1. No --drop-empty-revs has been supplied.
- 2. --drop-empty-revs has been supplied,
- but revision has not all
12 matches
Mail list logo
