It looks like everything went as expected. You did this like a pro!
I have checked the changes and ran the usual test without problems.
However I have since pushed another small administrative change to
configure.ac because automake and autoconf now want things to be done
differently.
More work i
Hi,
Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> > In other words, this is supposed to be a stress on you, we want you to
> > succeed.
Mario Đanić wrote:
> Hopefully you meant NO stress on him, we dont want him stressed out :D
Good to see that the younger generation cares for the blood pressure of us
babyboomers. :
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 7:08 AM Mario Đanić wrote:
> Rebase or merge. There are always ways :)
>
I never suggested this was the only way. I wrote that this was *a *command-line
way (with a misspelling of "an" for "a")
of what *might *be done. There are numerous other ways as well, and some of
th
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 7:08 AM Mario Đanić wrote:
> Hopefully you meant NO stress on him, we dont want him stressed out :D
>
Yes, you are correct: I meant NO stress. I am sorry for the stress this
typo may have caused.
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 00:08, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 6:57 AM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> > There is no way you can mess up in git, because history is saved by
> default
> > for *everyone. *And specifically I have a copy.
>
> I still see the opportunity for a race condition in the time window
> be
Rebase or merge. There are always ways :)
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 12:57, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> > There is no way you can mess up in git, because history is saved by
> default
> > for *everyone. *And specifically I have a copy.
>
> I still see the opportunity for
Hopefully you meant NO stress on him, we dont want him stressed out :D
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 00:08, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:13 PM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> > > I was thinking that Pete would do the merge since he also has commit
Hi,
Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> There is no way you can mess up in git, because history is saved by default
> for *everyone. *And specifically I have a copy.
I still see the opportunity for a race condition in the time window
between pull and push.
What happens if somebody else pushed a modified mas
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:13 PM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> > I was thinking that Pete would do the merge since he also has commit
> rights
> > after the two of you decide that it is time to merge
>
> Everybody is more qualified as git admin than i am.
>
>
> Pete Bat
Hi,
Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> I was thinking that Pete would do the merge since he also has commit rights
> after the two of you decide that it is time to merge
Everybody is more qualified as git admin than i am.
Pete Batard wrote:
> Actually I don't mind if you guys sort it out as last time I
Ok got it - thanks!
I will have to do this a bit later though because I want to be careful and
test everything and I cannot do that right now.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:10 PM Pete Batard wrote:
> I guess that would be fdd76a8ee4f4f00f1eabc6f632322db800ee9970 from the
> pete_batard_ce_v3 branch.
And for clarity use git show to get the SHA1. I just pulled master and here
is what I currently see:
$ git show
commit 6f2426e8bf4dc5269ccbd9fbfa94340895f8be6e (HEAD -> master,
origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: Robert Kausch
Date: Wed Mar 15 00:02:10 2023 +0100
Fix crash reading CD TOC o
I guess that would be fdd76a8ee4f4f00f1eabc6f632322db800ee9970 from the
pete_batard_ce_v3 branch. And then there's the one patch from
pete_batard_ce_v3 with SHA 569c452f8d1650c0ec50ebeef7869b54ed9c8be6.
Thanks!
/Pete
On 2023.03.23 20:03, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
Ok. Just give me the SHA1 of the
Ok. Just give me the SHA1 of the code that you'd like to see in master and
I will test it as well. And assuming everything works and it looks like
what has been mentioned here, I will merge it and let everyone know.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:58 PM Pete Batard wrote:
> Actually I don't mind if yo
Actually I don't mind if you guys sort it out as last time I checked (a
couple years ago), I had lost my ssh access right (which means that
right now I'm just using https to clone the repo) and I'm a bit busy
with other stuff ATM.
I'm actually quite happy to see that Thomas has take upon himse
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:12 PM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the patch applies and compiles without complaints.
>
> I was riddling about the exact meaning of "{ 0 }" when the struct has more
> than one member. In Linux time.h struct tm is declared with 11 members.
> Finally i found in C11 spec
Hi,
the patch applies and compiles without complaints.
I was riddling about the exact meaning of "{ 0 }" when the struct has more
than one member. In Linux time.h struct tm is declared with 11 members.
Finally i found in C11 specs (ISO/IEC 9899:2011 6.7.9 21):
If there are fewer initializers in
I hope this is obvious but I'll say it anyway. I do not have any comment on
the patches, and you should feel free to merge whenever you and Thomas are
mutually satisfied.
When the dust settles, if you all think we need to do a release I can do
that.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 5:10 PM Pete Batard wr
gcc 12.2.0 on MinGW produces multiple warnings similar to the one below:
In function 'iso9660_set_dtime',
inlined from 'iso9660_dir_add_entry_su' at iso9660.c:782:3:
iso9660.c:353:44: warning: 'temp_tm.tm_isdst' may be used uninitialized
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
353 | time_zone =
19 matches
Mail list logo
