On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 05:35:47PM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:46, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > >> Well, git just has a different set
> git sucks. mercurial ruleZ, i want a mercurial mirror.
> And python in base... and some icecream.
>
python and mercurial sucks both. Both have nothing to do with true UNIX
heritage. Use Ubuntu
git sucks. mercurial ruleZ, i want a mercurial mirror.
And python in base... and some icecream.
André
2012/8/6 Franco Fichtner :
> On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
>> Well, I have an actual list of advantages that git may offer:
>
> Thanks, Marc. Good listing! I wonder what CVS b
On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Well, I have an actual list of advantages that git may offer:
Thanks, Marc. Good listing! I wonder what CVS brings to the table on the
bright side?
I understand everything that's been said. I've even come to hate GPL'ed
software just because of u
Well, I have an actual list of advantages that git may offer:
- better patch/diff handling capabilities. CVS is very crappy at that.
As soon as you are testing stuff locally, every update request will produce
conflicts. git has very good merging capabilities, comparatively.
- possibility to hav
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:14:56PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I don't find this controversial, except the notion that sticking with
> > blunt tools to solve a human/procedural problem is a good idea.
>
> How else should I, as the maintainer of the trunk, contain the damage
> from these human/
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:46, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> >> Well, git just has a different set of bugs than cvs.
> > ...
> >> I would deem cvs MORE painful than git on avera
> I don't find this controversial, except the notion that sticking with
> blunt tools to solve a human/procedural problem is a good idea.
How else should I, as the maintainer of the trunk, contain the damage
from these human/procedural problems? Careful -- every suggestion you
want to suggest now
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> I will add a somewhat controversial viewpoint to the mix. Because cvs
> makes working with branches and large diffs so painful, it forces
> developers to split their work into smaller pieces. In OpenBSD,
> that's a good thing. Keepin
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:46, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
>> Well, git just has a different set of bugs than cvs.
> ...
>> I would deem cvs MORE painful than git on average, it's just that
>> we're more accustomed to the pain...
>
> Yes, th
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> Well, git just has a different set of bugs than cvs.
...
> I would deem cvs MORE painful than git on average, it's just that
> we're more accustomed to the pain...
Yes, this is right. And also there would be a price to pay in lost
produ
On 2012-08-04, Tony wrote:
> Personally I'd love to make a fork and contribute back a ton of pull
> requests, mostly on the documentation side though.
No need for all this complication of exporting/syncing between
the version control system used by OpenBSD and another one for work
directories - j
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Tony wrote:
> Personally I'd love to make a fork and contribute back a ton of pull
> requests, mostly on the documentation side though.
What's easier/nicer about github's pull request than sending an email
with an enclosed diff?
I use git for a lot of my local dev
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 05:47:47PM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote:
> Also, diffs from git has proven to not apply cleanly at times (for
> reasons unknown to me), so whatever you hope the versioning tool will
> let you do, don't forget to make sure any contributions do apply.
Well, git just has a dif
is worth, there is already a git repository that follows
> OpenBSD: http://anoncvs.estpak.ee/cgi-bin/cgit/openbsd-src/. However,
> I have found it unreliable and that is why I don't use it.
>
> Luis.
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Tony wrote:
>> Hey!
>>
>&g
nBSD: http://anoncvs.estpak.ee/cgi-bin/cgit/openbsd-src/. However,
I have found it unreliable and that is why I don't use it.
Luis.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Tony wrote:
> Hey!
>
> Guys, what do you think about putting OpenBSD on GitHub? I see you guys
> already have an account ther
No.
This has been discussed many times before, and we have no interest in
this.
On 2012 Aug 04 (Sat) at 15:43:37 +0200 (+0200), Tony wrote:
:Hey!
:
:Guys, what do you think about putting OpenBSD on GitHub? I see you guys
:already have an account there so I just thought I'd ask:
:
Hey!
Guys, what do you think about putting OpenBSD on GitHub? I see you guys
already have an account there so I just thought I'd ask:
https://github.com/openbsd
Will it attract more followers? Will it make life easier for developers?
Personally I'd love to make a fork and contribute
18 matches
Mail list logo
