Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> If there are no major objections, in a week's time I plan to make the
> CVS repo read-only and we'll move forward with Git.
I've now removed write access to the CVS repository, and will disable
CVS entirely once I see that people are
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> If there are no major objections, in a week's time I plan to make the
> CVS repo read-only and we'll move forward with Git.
Hooray, thanks so much Galen! Sounds like a great plan moving forward.
//Ed
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> I would argue for keeping stuff on sf.net ... and leapfrogging svn for
> git if we can.
To that end, I've enabled Git in the marcpm SourceForge project and
established a new repository which contains the history from the five
CVS modules
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> I would argue for keeping stuff on sf.net ... and leapfrogging svn for
> git if we can.
Both suggestions would be perfectly fine with me. Bryan, for your
reference, TortoiseGit [1] seems to be a well-supported Windows client
for Git.
[1
I would argue for keeping stuff on sf.net ... and leapfrogging svn for
git if we can.
//Ed
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
>> Speaking for myself only, of course: Please, for the love of god, move away
>>
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
> Speaking for myself only, of course: Please, for the love of god, move away
> from CVS. Moving the code to a more modern VCS and a well-supported host. The
> least-painful move might be to SVN on Google Code.
Picking up on this thre
+1
Thanks for working on this Galen.
//Ed
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>> It would be nice to see the 0.91 release get pushed out the door, in
>> any case. 0.88 was a long time ago.
>
> Any objections to my pus
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> It would be nice to see the 0.91 release get pushed out the door, in
> any case. 0.88 was a long time ago.
Any objections to my pushing out 0.91 as a bugfix release? I've
applied Bill's patch and addressed the one CPAN bug against 0.88. An
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> Was it decided that Bill's escaping output patch would be dropped? I
> don't see it in CVS yet.
I've committed Bill's patch and a test case based on the sample file
he sent. Thanks, Bill!
Regards,
Galen
2009/7/22 Galen Charlton :
> Hi,
>
> Nope, just haven't gotten around to pushing it. Soon, I promise!
>
> Funny you should mention CVS. I have a general question for the
> MARC/Perl hackers: Ed mentioned a while back moving from CVS to a more
> modern VCS such as Subversion or (my preference) Git
Speaking for myself only, of course: Please, for the love of god, move away
from CVS. Moving the code to a more modern VCS and a well-supported host. The
least-painful move might be to SVN on Google Code.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing but CVS available for OS9, though, so the
question has to
On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:10 PM, Galen Charlton
[galen.charl...@liblime.com] wrote:
>Funny you should mention CVS. I have a general question for the
MARC/Perl hackers: Ed mentioned a while back moving from CVS to a more
modern VCS such as Subversion or (my preference) Git. I'm willing to
do
Hi,
Nope, just haven't gotten around to pushing it. Soon, I promise!
Funny you should mention CVS. I have a general question for the
MARC/Perl hackers: Ed mentioned a while back moving from CVS to a more
modern VCS such as Subversion or (my preference) Git. I'm willing to
do the legwork to get
Was it decided that Bill's escaping output patch would be dropped? I
don't see it in CVS yet.
It would be nice to see the 0.91 release get pushed out the door, in
any case. 0.88 was a long time ago.
Dan
2009/4/14 Galen Charlton :
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>> 20
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> 2008/10/29 Bill Erickson :
> Is anyone planning on applying this patch? It would be a shame to drop
> it on the floor.
I'll take a look at it and apply it, unless somebody beats me to the
punch in the next day or two.
Regards,
Galen
--
G
2008/10/29 Bill Erickson :
> Hi all,
>
> I ran across some gnarly MARC data today, which contained, among other
> things, MARC codes of "<". I realized that Marc::File::XML outputs the MARC
> tags, codes, and indicators without escaping them. This results, in my
> case, in invalid XML like:
>
> F
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/29 Bill Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I ran across some gnarly MARC data today, which contained, among other
> > things, MARC codes of "<". I realized that Marc::File::XML outputs the
> MARC
> > ta
2008/10/29 Bill Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
> I ran across some gnarly MARC data today, which contained, among other
> things, MARC codes of "<". I realized that Marc::File::XML outputs the MARC
> tags, codes, and indicators without escaping them. This results, in my
> case, in inva
Hi all,
I ran across some gnarly MARC data today, which contained, among other
things, MARC codes of "<". I realized that Marc::File::XML outputs the MARC
tags, codes, and indicators without escaping them. This results, in my
case, in invalid XML like:
France
It seems reasonable that, regardle
19 matches
Mail list logo
