Hi,
Von: Ben Reser [mailto:b...@reser.org]
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > As noted on IRC earlier, we just deprecated BDB so that we wouldn't
> > have to continue supporting multiple backends. But it seems you have
> > just created a third/new backend.
>
> I think tha
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> As noted on IRC earlier, we just deprecated BDB so that we wouldn't
>> have to continue supporting multiple backends. But it seems you have
>> just created a third/new backend.
>
> I think that
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> As noted on IRC earlier, we just deprecated BDB so that we wouldn't
> have to continue supporting multiple backends. But it seems you have
> just created a third/new backend.
I think that's an incorrect assertion about why we deprecated BDB.
The
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
> >
> > The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> > into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the co
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
>
> The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
> to /trunk as well and continue development
On 07/01/2013 09:42 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:08:17AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> {{{
>> Should we require vote-based approval on the reintegration of feature
>> branches? At least some of the hackathon attendees favor the typical “three
>> +1's and no vetos” –
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:08:17AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> {{{
> Should we require vote-based approval on the reintegration of feature
> branches? At least some of the hackathon attendees favor the typical “three
> +1's and no vetos” – the room was not polled for general consensus here,
On 07/01/2013 08:50 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 16:42:27 +0400:
>> I remember we discussed policy about requiring three +1 for merging
>> branches.
>
> Link, please?
>
My recollection was that the discussion that was had occurred in person in
Berlin. I i
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 16:42:27 +0400:
> I remember we discussed policy about requiring three +1 for merging
> branches.
Link, please?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
>
> The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
> to /trunk as well and continue development
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:42:19 +0200:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
> > >
> > > The goal is to
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
> >
> > The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> > into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to br
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
>
> The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
> to /trunk as well and continue de
Hi all,
This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
to /trunk as well and continue development there. So, the
plan is:
* On the fsfs-format7 branch, duplicate the
14 matches
Mail list logo
