On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
David Maus writes:
Carsten Dominik wrote:
Hmm, the catcher did not see this. Why?
He did: http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/105/ -- patch is
already applied.
Where can I see that?
I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
John Wiegley writes:
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
>
>> John Wiegley writes:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
>>>
I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
>>>
>>> Accepted = Applied.
>>
>>
>> http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/73
On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
> John Wiegley writes:
>
>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
>>
>>> I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
>>
>> Accepted = Applied.
>
>
> http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/73/
>
> was never aplied. I just di
John Wiegley writes:
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
>
>> I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
>
> Accepted = Applied.
http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/73/
was never aplied. I just diffed my branch against the current head.
Sebastian
On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
> I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
Accepted = Applied.
> Is it possible to link to the commit a patch was applied?
After today, patches which are merged in using "pw" will note the resulting
commit.
John
___
David Maus writes:
> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>Hmm, the catcher did not see this. Why?
>
> He did: http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/105/ -- patch is
> already applied.
Where can I see that?
I read "Accepted" which is not "Applied", is it?
And there are "accepted" patches, that are not
Carsten Dominik wrote:
>Hmm, the catcher did not see this. Why?
He did: http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/105/ -- patch is
already applied.
-- David
--
OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6
Jabber dmj...@jabber.org
Email. dm...@ictsoc.de
pgpH4CvhS53kO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_
Hmm, the catcher did not see this. Why?
- Carsten
On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:02 PM, David Maus wrote:
* org-feed.el (org-feed-unescape): Remove superfluous lambda.
---
lisp/org-feed.el |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lisp/org-feed.el b/lisp/org-feed.el
ind
* org-feed.el (org-feed-unescape): Remove superfluous lambda.
---
lisp/org-feed.el |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lisp/org-feed.el b/lisp/org-feed.el
index 3edcf1a..cda7368 100644
--- a/lisp/org-feed.el
+++ b/lisp/org-feed.el
@@ -271,8 +271,7 @@ have bee
Argh. Just realized that (lambda (e) (car e)) is equivalent to (car
e). This one goes on top of the patches.
* org-feed.el (org-feed-unescape): Remove superfluous lambda.
---
lisp/org-feed.el |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lisp/org-feed.el b/lisp/org-
10 matches
Mail list logo