On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Justin Mason wrote:
> > You were using CVS to do merges?!
> >
> > I wonder if Craig was doing that too. I always create diffs and use
> > an editor, it didn't even occur to me that someone might be trusting
> > CVS to get it right. ;-)
>
> I know, I know -- I'd been spoilt
Daniel Quinlan said:
> You were using CVS to do merges?!
>
> I wonder if Craig was doing that too. I always create diffs and use
> an editor, it didn't even occur to me that someone might be trusting
> CVS to get it right. ;-)
I know, I know -- I'd been spoilt by several years of Clearcase (w
Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW I've stopped using CVS for rule merging, due to this kind of
> brokenness. Easier just to use diff and cut and paste to visually
> verify merging there. So it won't happen again, at least while I'm
> doing it ;)
*GASP*
You were using CVS to do mer
Daniel Quinlan said:
> I already improved this rule back on August 23rd, but someone made a
> broken CVS commit that reverted the improvement (and maybe more, but I
> didn't see anything obvious). I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we
> should have some sort of peer review for back-port and forwa
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached spam just barely sneaks under SA 2.42's radar because of a
> fake PGP signature line in an HTML comment.
I already improved this rule back on August 23rd, but someone made a
broken CVS commit that reverted the improvement (and maybe more, b
The attached spam just barely sneaks under SA 2.42's radar because of a
fake PGP signature line in an HTML comment.
I haven't tested it against 2.43 yet (Matt, CPAN?) so maybe this is a
false alarm, but it appears to be a deliberate SA-spoiler.
--- Begin Message ---
