Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> That's quite straight-forward, I think - except for the recent burst (I am
> essentially
> adapting the git 2.1.0 release shipped by the upcoming fedora 21 scheduled
> for christmas)
> I tend to update to the latest fedora release about a week or two after
> release;
> f
On Thu, 30/10/14, Eric Wong wrote:
> The missing merge on branch
"R-2-14-branch" is:
>
> commit
93af4d4cc3a5e0039944dd4e340d26995be8a252
> Merge: 121990f 6ff1b87
> Author: ripley
> Date: Wed Feb 22 13:45:34
2012 +
>
>
port r584
Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> On Tue, 28/10/14, Eric Wong wrote:
>
> > So both merges
> are correct, but we lose one, and gain one?
> I'll try to check more closely tomorrow.
> Can you point out
> the exact revisions in the
> R repo? Thanks.
>
>
> The missing merge on branch "R-2-14-branch" is
On Tue, 28/10/14, Eric Wong wrote:
> So both merges
are correct, but we lose one, and gain one?
I'll try to check more closely tomorrow.
Can you point out
the exact revisions in the
R repo? Thanks.
The missing merge on branch "R-2-14-branch" is:
commit 93af4d4cc3a5e0039944dd4e340d26995b
Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> To compare the old clone with the new, I did:
>
> git branch -r | sort | xargs -n 1 git log --decorate=full -n 1
>
> It turned out other than the empty vs 3 word commit messages
> about two years ago on trunk (which are inherited in all the newer
> branches), there are two
To compare the old clone with the new, I did:
git branch -r | sort | xargs -n 1 git log --decorate=full -n 1
It turned out other than the empty vs 3 word commit messages
about two years ago on trunk (which are inherited in all the newer
branches), there are two other groups of differences.
One b
6 matches
Mail list logo
