On 28 April 2020 17:14:49 BST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:41:33PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Its fine to focus on userspace first, but the kernel is far more
>simple.
>>
>> Looking at that presentation, the only thing missing for kernel is
>the
>> notrack thunks, in
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 11:34 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> On 4/19/08, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem with commits is that the average is not what matters.
> > Commits are bursty.
> > People make 5 commits to different branches in the course of a minute
> > or two, then there
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 18:04 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's not possible for a VCS to be "different" -- it can only be
> different from some other VCS.
That's true. For a non-distributed VCS, the 'norm' is generally
considered to be CVS. Subversion is "different from CVS", for a limited
number
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 13:35 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> If by "really weird" you mean "nobody has any real complaints about
> the way it works and are happy it is close to what they were using
> before", then yes, they are using something "really weird".
To be honest, I find it weird that Subver
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 12:47 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> We will never use git exclusively as long as it requires as many
> workflow changes for people as it currently does. This is not me
> speaking for the gcc community, this is me telling it like it is based
> on experience moving us to svn.
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace.
If you mail me a SSH public key you can also put it on
git.infradead.org.
--
dwmw2
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:39 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> How often will it be synced with upstream SVN? While you're at it,
> would David mind to also place a binutils, glibc and glibc-ports GIT
> repo next to it? That way, there would be a nice single point of GIT
> repos for the whole tool
