On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 23:40 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I disagree. In a centralised VCS sure, you can scale to 100's of commits
> > a day - but in a distributed VCS - e.g. bzr, git, hg, monotone ... you
> > tend to get 100's of commits on branches, and a much smaller number of
> > branch merges
On 8/13/07, Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 22:06 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> > On 8/11/07, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think you misunderstanding me, it's the generation if the changelog
> > > > that will take too long time.
> > >
> > > W
> I disagree. In a centralised VCS sure, you can scale to 100's of commits
> a day - but in a distributed VCS - e.g. bzr, git, hg, monotone ... you
> tend to get 100's of commits on branches, and a much smaller number of
> branch merges occuring - branch merges being the point at which code
> revie
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 22:06 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> On 8/11/07, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think you misunderstanding me, it's the generation if the changelog
> > > that will take too long time.
> >
> > Well, yes - what else could I have understood from:
> >
> > > That
On 8/12/07, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * NightStrike wrote on Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 04:50:21PM CEST:
> >
> > Update: It would appear that the automake manual needs to be updated,
> > as the described AC_OUTPUT usage is deprecated. How do we get the
> > manual updated?
>
> Preferab
* NightStrike wrote on Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 04:50:21PM CEST:
>
> Update: It would appear that the automake manual needs to be updated,
> as the described AC_OUTPUT usage is deprecated. How do we get the
> manual updated?
Preferably, by sending a patch against CVS HEAD to automake-patches, or
wri
Hello Jim,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 12:46:20PM CEST:
>
> On a related note, it'd sure be nice if "make -j4 check" would run its
> tests in parallel. Especially on an SMP system, and/or when some
> tests sleep for a few (interminable :-) seconds.
>
> Of course, this might not
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> OK, so it generates Makefile's that are fully capable of handling the -j
>> switch to make?
>
> Mostly. Problems should be reported, please include a copy of the make
> output of the failed build.
Hi Ralf,
On a related note, it'd sure be nice if
