lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| I have created a repo with basically the contents I think we should juse
| going forward. This repo is not directly accessible, but distributed as
| a git bundle.
This second bundle is _really_ close to what I think could be used as a
starting poi
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:38:11PM +0200, uwesto...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: uwestoehr
> Date: Wed Oct 12 17:38:10 2011
> New Revision: 39835
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/39835
>
> Log:
> status.20x: reformat an entry
You simply changed the wording. Please, can you explain why?
> Mod
All good.
2.0.0
2.0.0alpha1
2.0.0alpha2
2.0.0alpha3
2.0.0alpha4
2.0.0alpha5 - tag missing in svn repo. added
2.0.0alpha6
2.0.0beta1
2.0.0beta2
2.0.0beta3
2.0.0beta4
2.0.0beta5
2.0.0rc1
2.0.0rc2
2.0.0rc3
2.0.1
--
Lgb
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
>> 1.1.5 - tag missing in svn repo. 1.1.5 is also a branch, leading up
>> to release of 1.1.5fix1 and 1.1.5fix2
>> I named this branch 1.1.5fix_x
>> 1.1.5fix1 - unable to get these into same branch as rest of 1.1.x tags
>> 1.1.5fix2
1.6.8 has a small diff:
-
diff --git a/ANNOUNCE b/ANNOUNCE
index f5276aa..d8c87f7 100644
--- a/ANNOUNCE
+++ b/ANNOUNCE
@@ -70,9 +70,6 @@ want to apply one of the following patches instead:
ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/stable/1.6.x/patch-1.6.8.gz
ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/stable/
1.1.5 - tag missing in svn repo. 1.1.5 is also a branch, leading up
to release of 1.1.5fix1 and 1.1.5fix2
I named this branch 1.1.5fix_x
1.1.5fix1 - unable to get these into same branch as rest of 1.1.x tags
1.1.5fix2 - unable to get these into same branch as r
I added a approx 1.0.4 tag. This is basically what we based the new
development tree on. It might not be accurate, and I note that in the
tag message.
I also added tags for 1.1.1pre1 and 1.1.1pre2 which does not exist in
the svn repo. Seemingly in the right spot.
1.0.4 - synthetic and might
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
| Op 12-10-2011 19:45, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef:
>> gitglossary - grafts: Grafts enables two otherwise different lines
>> of development to be joined together by recording fake ancestry
>> information for commits. This way you can make git pretend the set
>> of p
Apart from 1.2.2 being placed wrong (three commits too late), all is
good. The 1.2 tags:
1.2.0pre1
1.2.0pre2
1.2.0pre3
1.2.0pre4
1.2.0pre5
1.2.0rc1
1.2.0
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
--
Lgb
Op 12-10-2011 19:45, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef:
gitglossary - grafts: Grafts enables two otherwise different lines of
development to be joined together by recording fake ancestry
information for commits. This way you can make git pretend the set of
parents a commit has is different from what
1.3.3 is a bit problematic. From what I can see the
math_boldsymbolinset.C as removed in the svn tag branch, but exists in
the three on the 1.3.x branch point of 1.3.3. There the file was not
even compiled, Makefile.am hookup comes some 16 commits later. I'll
leave the tag where I put it.
The 1.3
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
>> | This worked seemingly perfekt (except for the strangish history) for
>> | 1.5.3.
>>
>> grafts does not get resolved by a clone. Seems that git-filter-branch is
>> required for that.
>
| I don't really understand the problem. In the git repo it's pretty
| easy t
lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| (I'll go through the other series as well and try to be really thorough)
This is the 1.4 tags:
1.4.0pre1
1.4.0pre2
1.4.0pre3
1.4.0pre4
1.4.0pre5
1.4.0pre6 - fixed by grafting
1.4.0 - fixed by grafting
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.5.1
| This worked seemingly perfekt (except for the strangish history) for
| 1.5.3.
grafts does not get resolved by a clone. Seems that git-filter-branch is
required for that.
I don't really understand the problem. In the git repo it's pretty easy
to split commits and rewrite the history right ?
lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
>
| [...]
| | Thinking... no I think I can test out grafts without major surgery. It
| | is making the grafts permanent that is a flag-day. Then it is more
| | ok-ish. Will test.
>
| This worked see
lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
[...]
| Thinking... no I think I can test out grafts without major surgery. It
| is making the grafts permanent that is a flag-day. Then it is more
| ok-ish. Will test.
This worked seemingly perfekt (except for the strangish history) for
1.5.3.
--
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
>> I am inclined to ignore this difference and place the tag in the best
>> spot, instead of where it would be "correct". The diff above will then
>> added in the next commit after the 1.6.8 tag.
>
| The difference is really minor, so it would not be a problem.
>
|
1.6.8 - because the 1.6.8 branch (read: svn tag) seems to be made from
a wc with local changes. This is the diff from where I really want to
place the tag:
diff --git a/ANNOUNCE b/ANNOUNCE
index f5276aa..d8c87f7 100644
--- a/ANNOUNCE
+++ b/ANNOUNCE
@@ -70,9 +70,6 @@ want to apply one of the fo
18 matches
Mail list logo
