On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Log:
> > New date.
>
> Hmmm, what's with this apparent convention of changing the date in its own
> revision? I thought it was supposed to get changed along with a Real Change
> TM?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.
>
Atomicity. (i.) if you want to revert a Real Change, it should be
cleaner. (ii.) now that I've got svn merge actually working, no
conflicts (the dates are accompanied by branch titles, so trying to
merge adate change in general.ent produces a lot of mess).
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
