On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I "believe it breaks" because it does break. Ask JMarc about my old patches
> | that didn't apply properly. It was because of this problem.
> |
> | Any new/deleted file in a subdirectory is not handled pro
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I "believe it breaks" because it does break. Ask JMarc about my old patches
| that didn't apply properly. It was because of this problem.
|
| Any new/deleted file in a subdirectory is not handled properly,
| hence the need for the script.
So what you are
On Thursday, 15. March 2001 12:26, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > > Comments, flames, suggestions?
> >
> > Personally I think that it is better to do one dialog at a time and to
> > make sure that that is fully functional. This is much more transparent
> > and als
On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> | which break patch
>
> so you are saying that this breaks patch:
>
> Index: MAINTAINERS
> ===
> RCS file: MAINTAINERS
> diff -N MAINTAINER
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| which break patch
so you are saying that this breaks patch:
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
RCS file: MAINTAINERS
diff -N MAINTAINERS
--- /dev/null Tue May 5 22:32:27 1998
+++ MAINTAINERS Thu Mar
On 15 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 14 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | > diff -upN
> | > rdiff -upN
> | > update -dP
> | >
> | > the 'N' make the diff take new and deleted files into consideration.
> |
> | except cvs diff i
> You are probably right, but bear in mind these are forward ports
> of stuff Kalle had already done so in this case ...
I still think they should go in one at a time and complete. For the moment
Kalle's patch only adds the files. Of these files only the citation is added
to the Makefile but th
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 14 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > diff -upN
| > rdiff -upN
| > update -dP
| >
| > the 'N' make the diff take new and deleted files into consideration.
|
| except cvs diff is broken.
Is it? news to me.
Lgb
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Comments, flames, suggestions?
>
> Personally I think that it is better to do one dialog at a time and to make
> sure that that is fully functional. This is much more transparent and also
> easier to check and comment on. Fine tuning can then be don
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I finally got all my stuff to compile with the current CVS version. Here is
> my first patch. Sorry, it is pretty big, but I'd rather get everything in now
> so that I can make small incremental patches on this stuff in the future and
> ca
On 14 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> diff -upN
> rdiff -upN
> update -dP
>
> the 'N' make the diff take new and deleted files into consideration.
except cvs diff is broken. You also need to run Amir's "fixdiff.pl" on
the patch, http://www.movement.uklinux.net/
I tried the other day to
> Comments, flames, suggestions?
Personally I think that it is better to do one dialog at a time and to make
sure that that is fully functional. This is much more transparent and also
easier to check and comment on. Fine tuning can then be done later on.
gr.ed.
Kalle Dalheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| I finally got all my stuff to compile with the current CVS version. Here is
| my first patch. Sorry, it is pretty big, but I'd rather get everything in now
| so that I can make small incremental patches on this stuff in the future and
| ca
13 matches
Mail list logo
