On Sunday 01 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >
> > So the only time "parent" really makes sense is when
> > talking about a particular integration history: in
> > this branch, it merged right here.
> >
> > Historically, source code patches have been decoupled
> > from base versions specifica
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:21 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 01 November 2009, Řyvind Harboe wrote:
>> >> Hmm how do I read out which version a git patch is relative to?
>> >
>> > git show --pretty=raw 818cedaff
>> >
>> > instead of just "git show" (or "git log" etc). That includes
>> >
On Sunday 01 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> Hmm how do I read out which version a git patch is relative to?
> >
> > git show --pretty=raw 818cedaff
> >
> > instead of just "git show" (or "git log" etc). That includes
> > parent IDs ... possibly more than one for merge commits, as in
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Hmm how do I read out which version a git patch is relative to?
>
> git show --pretty=raw 818cedaff
>
> instead of just "git show" (or "git log" etc). That includes
> parent IDs ...
On Saturday 31 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > Similar idea: target->quit().
>
> I looked over the current quit target implementation. Not
> used. All default implementations do nothing...
>
> Remove it?
Exactly. :)
> How about attached patch?
It seems to remove it; so I like the pa
On Saturday 31 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Hmm how do I read out which version a git patch is relative to?
git show --pretty=raw 818cedaff
instead of just "git show" (or "git log" etc). That includes
parent IDs ... possibly more than one for merge commits, as in
the example above.
Hmm how do I read out which version a git patch is relative to?
In svn patches the version # was included.
Her in git patches the parent version # is not...
commit b0f24d5fc6f2e15aff0904362ee3ff18a264bb4b
Author: Øyvind Harboe
Date: Sat Oct 31 13:57:18 2009 +0100
target: remove unuse
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:12 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 30 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Deleted unused fn's in interfaces. Unused fn's will be copy & pasted
>> around the code, get rid of it.
>>
>> Keeping it in a dev branch until after 0.3.
>>
>> See head of:
>>
>> http://repo
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:12 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 30 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Deleted unused fn's in interfaces. Unused fn's will be copy & pasted
>> around the code, get rid of it.
>>
>> Keeping it in a dev branch until after 0.3.
>>
>> See head of:
>>
>> http://repo
On Friday 30 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Deleted unused fn's in interfaces. Unused fn's will be copy & pasted
> around the code, get rid of it.
>
> Keeping it in a dev branch until after 0.3.
>
> See head of:
>
> http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/oharboe.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/remove_pre
Deleted unused fn's in interfaces. Unused fn's will be copy & pasted
around the code, get rid of it.
Keeping it in a dev branch until after 0.3.
See head of:
http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/oharboe.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/remove_pre_debug
Is it a good or bad idea to post patches just as links
11 matches
Mail list logo
