On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does no one else still have changes cached locally they never checked > > > in or anything else like that? > > > > Why do you still have uncommitted changes in CVS when we initially > > began this move something like 4 or 5 weeks ago. Please commit them if > > they are important - if they are not important enough to commit after > > 5 weeks, I automatically assume they are insignificant. > > Well when i redid the udev stuff ages ago, I had to let it langish > because people told me to. And since CVS can't do offline diffs, I > don't even know if I have changes in places. I'm sorry my workflow > isn't quite like yours and that I sometimes like to view history > through command line tools. > > I haven't had the chance to do a full checkout and pull the attached > patch over and apply it to SVN, but maybe I'll get a chance sometime. > > > > And yes, I'm pretty sure you're the only one still using CVS. Travis > > and I spent about an hour (most of it was Travis though) making CVS > > workable just for you, when you were one of the more vocal people for > > moving away from CVS. Please stop using it so we can stop wasting time > > fixing it when it breaks for you. > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Issues right now: > > > 1) There is no public SVN checkout method yet > > > > I sent you a personal email about getting rid of the autowifi svn repo > > so we could repurpose the public svn stuff. Until you give me the > > go-ahead on that, this can't happen. > > > > > > > 2) The description should reflect that we use SVN and that community > uses > > > CVS (should mention where one can checkout community) > > > > Which description? In the wiki? > The link from the front page: http://archlinux.org/cvs/ > > I'm normally a fan of progress and change, but I have to disagree with > your tone in this email and how you've managed to move all wrongs to > Thomas and I. Makes my work feel wanted around here.
Um? Woah? Sorry if it came off that way. It wasn't intended like that. I apologize.
