Thanks.
(Gavin: note that this thread can be disregarded from a patch tracking
point of view.)
On 10/05/2010 05:16 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote:
> Yes Mike... please disregard this patch for now because no point in
> development without any requirement.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Prabhu GS
>
> O
Yes Mike... please disregard this patch for now because no point in
development without any requirement.
Thanks & Regards
Prabhu GS
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:01 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Are you saying, then, that you'd like us to disregard your patch for now?
>
> On 09/29/2010 08:50 AM,
Are you saying, then, that you'd like us to disregard your patch for now?
On 09/29/2010 08:50 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote:
> Mike,
> Sorry for the delayed response.
> Your point is very much a valid one, Mike. But since we used
> *re.match*, "perf" would not match "superfun". But your po
Mike,
Sorry for the delayed response.
Your point is very much a valid one, Mike. But since we used
*re.match*, "perf" would not match "superfun". But your point really
holds good when "super" would match "superfun" repo. Actually I was not
aware of the -s option(thank you for that) while
On 09/22/2010 09:07 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The svnperms.py script reads the svnperms.conf file, which needs the
> section rules for all the repos uniquely. This was quite tough when we
> have n number if repos. I wished that svnperms.py reads regex matches
> and applies the configu
5 matches
Mail list logo
