I think such a patch would be an improvement.
-t
Andy Tai wrote:
I am not aware of any such prior patches or any objection
to such a
patch, but I am not knowledgeable about the time prior to me being the
maintainer.
Maybe Tom can provide the definite answer...
On 9/27/06, Pedro Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hello,
While I was browsing through tla's bug database, I came across bug
number 8206. Basically the bug reports says that "tla changes -H" output
should define what all proper changes identifiers are. For example, and
I quote:
"
tla changes gives an output like
A path/to/file
D path/to/other/file
M this/file/was/modified
The meaning of the letters (A, D, M in this example) is not documented
in tla changes -H, but I think it should be."
I was thinking of creating a patch for this, and submitting it, but
wanted to ask first. Is there a reason to go against such a patch? Are
there better ways to do this? Has this been discussed before and it has
been decided is no good, or just no one has had time to write a patch
(In which case, I will do so)?
Ok, let me know what you guys think, and we will go from there,
--
Pedro Perez
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
|
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
