Stephan Witt wrote:
> But CVS improvements I'd like to backport.
when the code is enclosed inside CVS::... functions i have no problem
with backporting it. cvs is currently unusable in branch.
pavel
Stephan Witt wrote:
> Ok. I don't have a need to do so. But CVS improvements I'd like to
> backport. I'd say there I fix real trouble. I'd discuss it with Pavel to
> an end. Would that be ok?
Sure. Just let me know when you have come to an agreement.
Jürgen
Am 12.10.2010 um 10:03 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> improvements belong rather to trunk. unless you are
>> fixing some real trouble i would like not touch svn code in branch.
>
> +1.
Ok. I don't have a need to do so. But CVS improvements I'd like to backport.
I'd say the
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> improvements belong rather to trunk. unless you are
> fixing some real trouble i would like not touch svn code in branch.
+1.
Apart from that, I trust Pavel's expertise here. IOW, I let you discuss this.
Jürgen
Stephan Witt wrote:
> > generally looks fine.
> >
> >> The backport of the CVS-backend changes would be the 2. Attachment - Patch
> >> 3.
> >
> > i see you touch svn code which iirc was not altered in trunk. this is
> > lefotver
> > or you mean it?
>
> Oh, as I come along I thought: one should
Am 11.10.2010 um 17:29 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Can you please say if this would be ok for you. (1. Attachment - Patch 2)
>
> generally looks fine.
>
>> The backport of the CVS-backend changes would be the 2. Attachment - Patch 3.
>
> i see you touch svn code which iirc was
Stephan Witt wrote:
> Can you please say if this would be ok for you. (1. Attachment - Patch 2)
generally looks fine.
> The backport of the CVS-backend changes would be the 2. Attachment - Patch 3.
i see you touch svn code which iirc was not altered in trunk. this is lefotver
or you mean it?
>
Am 09.10.2010 um 20:01 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Stephan Witt wrote:
>>> Here it is. Not so difficult - but as I said to post it here...
>>
>> If Pavel agrees, it can go in.
>
> of course, put it in.
Pavel, Jürgen,
I have stolen the code of SVN::repoUpdate and copied
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Stephan Witt wrote:
> > Here it is. Not so difficult - but as I said to post it here...
>
> If Pavel agrees, it can go in.
of course, put it in.
pavel
Stephan Witt wrote:
> Here it is. Not so difficult - but as I said to post it here...
If Pavel agrees, it can go in.
Jürgen
Am 08.10.2010 um 15:26 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>> I'll prepare a patch and post in on list.
>> This single commit is not good enough. Ok?
>
> Yes, sure.
Here it is. Not so difficult - but as I said to post it here...
Index: src/LyXFunc.cpp
Stephan Witt wrote:
> I'll prepare a patch and post in on list.
> This single commit is not good enough. Ok?
Yes, sure.
Jürgen
Am 08.10.2010 um 13:42 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Juergen, this would be actually good to backport.
>
> Fine with me.
I'll prepare a patch and post in on list.
This single commit is not good enough. Ok?
Stephan
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Juergen, this would be actually good to backport.
Fine with me.
Jürgen
sw...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: switt
> Date: Fri Oct 8 07:30:07 2010
> New Revision: 35573
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35573
>
> Log:
> add some tests for LFUN_VC_REVERT and LFUN_VC_REPO_UPDATE
>
> Modified:
>lyx-devel/trunk/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
>
> Modified: lyx-devel
15 matches
Mail list logo
