On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Ohad Levy wrote:
> what about git?
>
Well, my take on the problems with git are that:
1. Its Windows-support may be lacking. See:
http://use.perl.org/~Alias/journal/33825
2. It is more complex than Subversion:
<<
shlomi:~$ git-
Display all 132 possibilities
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Ohad Levy wrote:
> > what about git?
>
> Git main attraction is distributed development. For something like the
> Linux kernel it is indispensable.
>
> The thing is, most software development, even in the Open Source world,
> is not really dist
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:57:32 +0200
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc Volovic wrote:
>
> > Good heavens...
> >
> > Subversion and/or CVS - take your choice.
> >
> I'll go with that recommendation if you only give me one thing that CVS
> does better than SVN.
>
> Between the tw
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:21:56 +0200
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ohad Levy wrote:
> > what about git?
> >
>
> Git main attraction is distributed development. For something like the
> Linux kernel it is indispensable.
>
> The thing is, most software development, even in the Open
svn (subversion) is relatively easy to use and has both gui and cli frontends
(windows maybe only gui). there is tortoise svn which integrates into explorer.
cvs is mostly the same.
The big difference is that with cvs commits are per file (if you made dependent
changes on two different files the
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Shahar Dag wrote:
> Hi
>
> the advantage of SVN over CVS is:
> 1. if you commit several files, in SVN it is an atomic action while in CVS
> it is not. Than mean that with CVS some file may be updated while other
> wont ==> your repository is not consistent
From what I
Ohad Levy wrote:
what about git?
Git main attraction is distributed development. For something like the
Linux kernel it is indispensable.
The thing is, most software development, even in the Open Source world,
is not really distributed. Also, I don't think there is a Windows git
client :-
Oi,
Git is a silly that.
M
- "Ohad Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what about git?
>
--
---MAV
Marc A. Volovic Swiftouch, LTD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-544-676764
===
what about git?
On Feb 19, 2008 8:16 PM, Shahar Dag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> the advantage of SVN over CVS is:
> 1. if you commit several files, in SVN it is an atomic action while in CVS
> it is not. Than mean that with CVS some file may be updated while other
> wont
> ==> your
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:16:39PM +0200, Shahar Dag wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> the advantage of SVN over CVS is:
> 1. if you commit several files, in SVN it is an atomic action while in CVS
> it is not. Than mean that with CVS some file may be updated while other
> wont ==> your repository is not
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 11:13 +0200, Dan Shimshoni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way I can test, from a kernel module, the existence of a
> device file ?
> A kernel module I write is a character device module, which depends
> on getting ioctls. In order that it will work, "mknod ... /dev/myDev"
> sho
--MP_/V4h+.wPidA+o4ZXtcRImqzx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
It was generated originally using lyx but I cleaned it up a bit, seems like the
theorem declarations are causing the problem, without them it compiles fine
Micha
Hi
the advantage of SVN over CVS is:
1. if you commit several files, in SVN it is an atomic action while in CVS
it is not. Than mean that with CVS some file may be updated while other wont
==> your repository is not consistent
2. when renaming, CVS will loose the history while SVN whill han
Dan Shimshoni wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way I can test, from a kernel module, the existence of a
device file ?
A kernel module I write is a character device module, which depends
on getting ioctls. In order that it will work, "mknod ... /dev/myDev"
should be issued before to create the device file.
It is impossible.
When the kernel loads it first loads built in modules, then mounts file
system later on init insert other modules.
What you want is a module that can only be inserted by init or manually by
modprob or insmod.
In modern systems however, the device files are generated using udevd so
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Dan Shimshoni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way I can test, from a kernel module, the existence of a
> device file ?
>
> A kernel module I write is a character device module, which depends
> on getting ioctls. In order that it will work, "mknod ... /dev/myD
Hi,
Is there a way I can test, from a kernel module, the existence of a
device file ?
A kernel module I write is a character device module, which depends
on getting ioctls. In order that it will work, "mknod ... /dev/myDev"
should be issued before to create the device file.
Is there a way to che
Hi Aviv,
Answers like yours make linux-il a fun list :-)
Aviv Greenberg wrote:
IOAT - its not a TCP offload engine. Intel's assumption is that the
CPU is wasting a lot of cycles to copy data (from kernel to user and
vv). IOAT is just a smart DMA engine that can move data (copy)
without wasti
18 matches
Mail list logo
