alright alright!
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> Dude, we're talking about advancing by a day an event which is already
> seriously late anyway. The end of the world isn't going to come out
> of this and, even if it were, 24 more hours to live wouldn't make the
> slightest bit
> It's already Sunday GMT.
That it is. Well then that is good enough for me. (although Zulu time
sounds more cool to me).
I just "upgraded" my main EGCS development machine to the March 31st
CURRENT snapshot and am doing a `make buildworld' to ensure things are
ready go to.
I will be gone from
Dude, we're talking about advancing by a day an event which is already
seriously late anyway. The end of the world isn't going to come out
of this and, even if it were, 24 more hours to live wouldn't make the
slightest bit of difference to you anyway. I think you just need to
chill out and let -c
It's really not necessary given that -D gives us the same functionality.
It's also hardly a desperation measure to use a commonly available feature
of CVS, especially not when one is already crazed enough to track -current
in the first place.
- Jordan
> We could also tag the repository... would
-current comes without any warranties whatsoever. I say just pull
the switch! :)
> > Better yet, can we just run with this today instead of tomorrow?
>
> I guess we could do it today.
>
> But there might be some that were planning on doing a final CVSup
> tonight, since the announcement was for
> >
> > Just because the compiler changes doesn't mean development on
> > the 4.0 branch have to stop. We need to get this change in the
> > hands of as many people as we can so that we can work out any
> > remaining hitches. Waiting another 24 hours == wasting another
> > 24 hours, IMHO.
>
> I
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> # > Something that someone playing with bleeding edge bits should
> # > be willing to do, IMHO.
> #
> # That's ridiculous. There's substantial work ongoing in 4.0 with enough
> # people involved that changing t
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> # > Something that someone playing with bleeding edge bits should
> # > be willing to do, IMHO.
> #
> # That's ridiculous. There's substantial work ongoing in 4.0 with enough
> # people involved that changing things around for the hell of it and not
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
# > Something that someone playing with bleeding edge bits should
# > be willing to do, IMHO.
#
# That's ridiculous. There's substantial work ongoing in 4.0 with enough
# people involved that changing things around for the hell of it and not
# sticking to
For a major change like using a different compiler- seems like A Good
Idea(tm).
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> We could also tag the repository... would that be better?
>
> > No. Don't. Please stick to reported change times. 'cvs co -D' is a
> > desperate last measure.
> >
> > >
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> #
> #
> # No. Don't. Please stick to reported change times. 'cvs co -D' is a
> # desperate last measure.
>
> Something that someone playing with bleeding edge bits should
> be willing to do, IMHO.
That's ridiculous. There's substantial work ongoi
We could also tag the repository... would that be better?
> No. Don't. Please stick to reported change times. 'cvs co -D' is a
> desperate last measure.
>
> > They can always CVSup the latest bits and 'cvs co -D...' if they
> > are getting the repository. They can also do this with a 'date=...'
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
#
#
# No. Don't. Please stick to reported change times. 'cvs co -D' is a
# desperate last measure.
Something that someone playing with bleeding edge bits should
be willing to do, IMHO.
#
# On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Steve Price wrote:
#
# > On Sat, 3 Apr 199
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Better yet, can we just run with this today instead of tomorrow?
>
> I guess we could do it today.
>
> But there might be some that were planning on doing a final CVSup
> tonight, since the announcement was for Sunday.
>
> Opinions?
Its -CURRENT ...
No. Don't. Please stick to reported change times. 'cvs co -D' is a
desperate last measure.
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> # I guess we could do it today.
> #
> # But there might be some that were planning on doing a final CVSup
> # tonig
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
# I guess we could do it today.
#
# But there might be some that were planning on doing a final CVSup
# tonight, since the announcement was for Sunday.
They can always CVSup the latest bits and 'cvs co -D...' if they
are getting the repository. They can
> Better yet, can we just run with this today instead of tomorrow?
I guess we could do it today.
But there might be some that were planning on doing a final CVSup
tonight, since the announcement was for Sunday.
Opinions?
--
-- David(obr...@nuxi.com -or- obr...@freebsd.org)
To Unsubscri
17 matches
Mail list logo
