On 6/8/20 10:20 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>
>
> Thanks for all the feedback. I try to work out something more detailed aka
> patch that we can discuss then.
>
Done as r1879822. Happy to get some feedback.
Regards
Rüdiger
> On 1 Jun 2020, at 13:33, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2020, at 21:30, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>> changes-fragments/
>>2.4.41/
>>2.4.42/
>>2.4.43/
>>2.4.44/
And a current/ as symlink?
> I’m keen for a
On 6/2/20 2:17 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>
>> Am 02.06.2020 um 14:11 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri :
>>
>> On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem
>>> wrote:
>>>
Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge
vi
> Am 02.06.2020 um 14:11 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri :
>
> On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge
>>> via svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. Whil
On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge
>> via svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
>> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, both for reviewing
On 29 May 2020, at 21:30, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, both for reviewing and fo
Works for me.
> On May 29, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, bot
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
> svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
> process, both for reviewing
Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via
svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While
these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport
process, both for reviewing and for actually doing the
backport. How about if we change the
10 matches
Mail list logo