On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:29:04PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> You can update your local GIT checkout to point to the new location
> as follows:
>
> - Remove old location
>
>git remote rm origin
>
> - Add new location, either for commit access:
>
>git remote add origin g...@git
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:38:24PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> So I'm suggesting we immediately migrate to gitlab.com. Assuming that's
> fine with current committers, I'll setup the project org & import hte
> git repo. Each committer would just have to create themselves a login
> account so
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:09:16PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 03.03.2016 15:22, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:57:09PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Zee
On 03.03.2016 15:22, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:57:09PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
>>> wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Yeah, I have no o
I've talked about splitting off the database several times in the past,
and I think we're now in a position to do exactly that.
The two core goals of splitting off the database are
- Make it easy to issue updates to the DB without updating the code.
This will help LTS distros which are often
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:57:09PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > >
> > > Yeah, I have no objections on moving to gitlab.
> >
> > Same he
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:57:09PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Yeah, I have no objections on moving to gitlab.
>
> Same here, fine by me.
No objections either.
Christophe
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:07:08PM +0300, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>
> > Build with older gcc fails with:
> >
> > CC libosinfo_1_0_la-osinfo_avatar_format.lo
> > In file included from ../osinfo/osinfo_os.h:30,
> > from ../osinfo/osinfo.h:55,
>
Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> Build with older gcc fails with:
>
> CC libosinfo_1_0_la-osinfo_avatar_format.lo
> In file included from ../osinfo/osinfo_os.h:30,
> from ../osinfo/osinfo.h:55,
> from osinfo_avatar_format.c:28:
> ../osinfo/osinfo_media.h:68:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Yeah, I have no objections on moving to gitlab.
Same here, fine by me.
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Currently the libosinfo master git repository is on the Fedora
Hi Daniel,
Yeah, I have no objections on moving to gitlab.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Currently the libosinfo master git repository is on the Fedora hosted
> git server. As we split out the core database and tools from the GObject
> base library we'
Hi Folks,
Currently the libosinfo master git repository is on the Fedora hosted
git server. As we split out the core database and tools from the GObject
base library we're going to need to create new git repos. While I could
do so on Fedora, it is rather tedious because it is not self-service,
it
12 matches
Mail list logo