On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 21:04, William Giokas wrote:
> Actually quite a good idea, I must say.
thanks,
I forgot to add, most of my patchqueues are using guards like:
hg qselect `uname -s`
Allows me to have the same repo for Linux (work) and FreeBSD (home).
ie. you need different scripts for
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013, at 13:31, Chris Down wrote:
On 9 Jun 2013 12:29, "Łukasz Gruner" <[1]uka...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 21:04, William Giokas wrote:
> > > git is not yet ready to be used as a general version control, as
it has
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 21:04, William Giokas wrote:
> > git is not yet ready to be used as a general version control, as it has
> > no proper user-facing api.
>
> I'm unsure where you are getting this from...
Well, I see git as a 'version control assembler' - as in "you should not
be using this
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 14:24, Markus Teich wrote:
> Please, enlighten me!
>
> --Markus
>
>
> Am 08.06.2013 13:18, schrieb Łukasz Gruner:
> > you might use a real version control instead of git.
>
not having any particular one in mind, just one that behaves proper
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 3:04, Markus Teich wrote:
> git will break them. It calls unlink and create on every update.
you might use a real version control instead of git.
--
Pozdrawiam,
Łukasz Gruner
