On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 08:37:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul 4 20:13, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor writes:
>> > I don't think any native English speaker would use "ephemeral" as a
>> > switch name. I'll bet a significant number of native English speakers
>> > don't even k
On Jul 4 20:13, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Christopher Faylor writes:
> > I don't think any native English speaker would use "ephemeral" as a
> > switch name. I'll bet a significant number of native English speakers
> > don't even know what it means.
>
> How many of those are compiling their own Cygwi
Christopher Faylor writes:
> I don't think any native English speaker would use "ephemeral" as a
> switch name. I'll bet a significant number of native English speakers
> don't even know what it means.
How many of those are compiling their own Cygwin packages?
> And, I said "something like" not
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 07:41:03AM +0200, ASSI wrote:
>On Monday 02 July 2012, 11:49:08, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I'm not paying close attention but I have to say that I really don't
>>like the name "ephemeral" for a switch. Couldn't it be named more
>>precisely to indicate what it is doing lik
On Monday 02 July 2012, 11:49:08, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I'm not paying close attention but I have to say that I really don't like
> the name "ephemeral" for a switch. Couldn't it be named more precisely
> to indicate what it is doing like --no-update-db or something like that?
I'm not convi
On Monday 02 July 2012, 11:32:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Recording the ephemeral files in the database properly would likely
> > require a new database format and more support functions, so I'm
> > skipping that for now, I also don't see any need for that at the
> > moment.
>
> You could also
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:32:03AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun 30 06:45, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11:33:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > If you really want -E to be an exclusive option, then what I'm missing
>> > is the enforcement on the command line.
>>
>> Here
On Jun 30 06:45, Achim Gratz wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11:33:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > If you really want -E to be an exclusive option, then what I'm missing
> > is the enforcement on the command line.
>
> Here's a reworked patch (against rebase-4.2.0-1) that enforces mutual
> exc
On Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11:33:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> If you really want -E to be an exclusive option, then what I'm missing
> is the enforcement on the command line.
Here's a reworked patch (against rebase-4.2.0-1) that enforces mutual
exclusivity between -T and -E; extra files given on
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> If you really want -E to be an exclusive option, then what I'm missing
> is the enforcement on the command line.
Yes, this still needs to be implemented, if there is consensus that the
idea itself is sound. It may even be possible to process both options
correctly, that
On Jun 19 21:24, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > The implementation of -E is a bit lacking, IMHO.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > The description implies that the ephemeral file list gets "also" rebased.
> > So I take it that there are two lists of files, the ones which get
> > rebased a
Reini Urban writes:
> Did you see my perl-5.14 changes in EUMM for something like that?
> http://code.google.com/p/cygwin-
rurban/source/browse/trunk/release/perl/pl-CYG07-
cygwin_vendorarchautorebase-2.patch?spec=svn125&r=125
I've not looked into that particular detail, thanks for pointing it out
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> The implementation of -E is a bit lacking, IMHO.
Fair enough.
> The description implies that the ephemeral file list gets "also" rebased.
> So I take it that there are two lists of files, the ones which get
> rebased and are written back into the DB, and the ephemeral o
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 13 21:19, ASSI wrote:
>> I've implemented a new option that allows to temporarily rebase some files
>> without messing up the rebase database. This is needed for instance when
>> one compiles Perl modules with DLL and wants to test
On Jun 13 21:19, ASSI wrote:
> I've implemented a new option that allows to temporarily rebase some files
> without messing up the rebase database. This is needed for instance when
> one compiles Perl modules with DLL and wants to test them in the build
> directory. I hope this can be implemen
On Wednesday 13 June 2012, 21:19:22, ASSI wrote:
> I've implemented a new option that allows to temporarily rebase some files
> without messing up the rebase database.
Please apply this patch as well.
diff -dup rebase-4.2.1-1/rebase.c rebase-4.2.1-2/rebase.c
--- rebase-4.2.1-1/rebase.c 2012-0
I've implemented a new option that allows to temporarily rebase some files
without messing up the rebase database. This is needed for instance when
one compiles Perl modules with DLL and wants to test them in the build
directory. I hope this can be implemented into the release version so that
17 matches
Mail list logo
