On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:23:08 -0700
Ori Bernstein wrote:
> - I can remove the libavl usage, possibly replacing with
> the objset implementation I already have.
Did this one. Turned out to save a couple of lines, in the end.
--
Ori Bernstein
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 05:00:15PM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> 9front maintainers, can anyone speak to technical reasons for creating a
> new version rather than fixing existing? Also, any thoughts on changing the
> name slightly so they can both be on the same system? maybe libAVL?
In 2016
I now realize there are two different libavl's. It's easy enough to copy
from 9front repo (hopefully there are no cascading dependencies).
9front maintainers, can anyone speak to technical reasons for creating a
new version rather than fixing existing? Also, any thoughts on changing the
name
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:29:30 -0700
Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The avl library doesn't match up to 9legacy version. Any ideas?
Looking at a few options. I can just say "well, patch it", but it'd
be nice to see the various plan9s playing better with each other.
There are a few options.
> The avl library doesn't match up to 9legacy version. Any ideas?
>
> BTW, I think your notes on this message are a great start for a README.
git9 seems to use 9front's libavl, which is a rewrite of Plan 9's libavl.
9legacy uses the original Plan9's libavl.
Please try this patch:
>From: hiro
>Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 12:22 PM
>To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
>
>no
Can you elaborate?
Cull
no
On 4/3/19, Cull wrote:
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:08 AM
>>>On April 3, 2019 4:02:49 PM UTC, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
>>>Don't particularly care. At some point I'd like to commit it to 9front,
>>>but I can relicense it then.
>>>
>>>Do you have a preference?
>>
>>Probably MIT or a
>From: Kurt H Maier
>Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 11:59 AM
>To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
>
>The copyright holder can relicense at will.
I guess I was thinking moreso if, for some reason, the author didn't (i.e. went
MIA or was just lazy).
Cull
>From: Kurt H Maier
>Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 11:59 AM
>To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
>
>The copyright holder can relicense at will.
I guess I was thinking moreso if, for some reason, the author didn't (i.e. went
MIA or was just lazy).
Cull
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:43:55AM -0700, Cull wrote:
>
> Wouldn't BSD (2 clause) be the easiest to reliscence down the road?
>
The copyright holder can relicense at will.
khm
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:59:22 +
Giacomo wrote:
> On April 3, 2019 4:02:49 PM UTC, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
> >Don't particularly care. At some point I'd like to commit it to 9front,
> >but I can relicense it then.
> >
> >Do you have a preference?
>
> Probably MIT or a BSD.
>
> But I can
>Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:08 AM
>>On April 3, 2019 4:02:49 PM UTC, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
>>Don't particularly care. At some point I'd like to commit it to 9front,
>>but I can relicense it then.
>>
>>Do you have a preference?
>
>Probably MIT or a BSD.
>
>But I can also live with any
>Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:08 AM
>>On April 3, 2019 4:02:49 PM UTC, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
>>Don't particularly care. At some point I'd like to commit it to 9front,
>>but I can relicense it then.
>>
>>Do you have a preference?
>
>Probably MIT or a BSD.
>
>But I can also live with
Hi,
The avl library doesn't match up to 9legacy version. Any ideas?
BTW, I think your notes on this message are a great start for a README.
Thanks,
-Skip
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:48 PM wrote:
> It was mentioned on this list a short while ago. Now, it's
> more or less at the point where it
On April 3, 2019 4:02:49 PM UTC, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
>Don't particularly care. At some point I'd like to commit it to 9front,
>but I can relicense it then.
>
>Do you have a preference?
Probably MIT or a BSD.
But I can also live with any copyleft of your choice.
Giacomo
> Impressive!
>
> I didn't imagine one could implement git in so few lines of C! Thanks for
> challenging my assumptions!
>
> I'd like to port it to Jehanne but I cannot find a license in the repository,
> so in theory it's "all rights reserved" under most jurisdictions.
>
> What's your
On April 2, 2019 4:41:09 AM UTC, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
>It was mentioned on this list a short while ago. Now, it's
>more or less at the point where it works for me. Expect
>many bugs and problems, and many more missing tools, but
>"the rest is just scripting".
>
>One caveat I have: Git's
17 matches
Mail list logo
