On 2015/04/06 11:59, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
Stuart Henderson said:
I think we should remove the existing ones and make it an error to
specify both GH_TAGNAME and GH_COMMIT. Thoughts? If people think this
is a good idea I'll do the ports mop-up.
I'd rather see a warning saying that
Stuart Henderson said:
I think we should remove the existing ones and make it an error to
specify both GH_TAGNAME and GH_COMMIT. Thoughts? If people think this
is a good idea I'll do the ports mop-up.
I'd rather see a warning saying that GH_COMMIT is ignored and should be
removed. I see no
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2015-04-04, Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net wrote:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote:
Hi tech@
I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging
otter-browser 0.9.04.
On 2015-04-04, Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net wrote:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote:
Hi tech@
I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging
otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit
then the tagged
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Landry Breuil wrote:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote:
Hi tech@
I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging
otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit
then the tagged
Hi tech@
I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging
otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit
then the tagged revision so we did:
GH_TAGNAME = v0.9.04
# This is the actual tagged revision
# GH_COMMIT =
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote:
Hi tech@
I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging
otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit
then the tagged revision so we did:
GH_TAGNAME = v0.9.04
# This is