I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if
you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la
"svn delete").
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
> Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic.
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Oktober 2017 10:31
> An: httpd-dev
> Betreff: Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
>
> I like this "attic" idea better,
Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic. You could make a dir
/branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People wanting to "resurrect"
them can simply move them back. This is not RCS.
> Am 25.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Greg Stein :
>
> To be clear: "delete"
Am 25.10.2017 um 18:26 schrieb Daniel Gruno:
On 10/25/2017 06:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
it is *not* helpful when you already have deployed httpd 2.4.29 that you
by random luck face a apr-1.6.3 build on the fedora buildserver
I'd suggest you post this to d...@apr.apache.org if you want
On 26 Oct 2017, at 12:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i am not going to subscribe to every single devel list out there for single
> issues and had already submitted a bug as 1.6.x was over months invisible
> when you expect that the top part of the page is recent
Please
Am 26.10.2017 um 12:38 schrieb Graham Leggett:
On 26 Oct 2017, at 12:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i am not going to subscribe to every single devel list out there for single
issues and had already submitted a bug as 1.6.x was over months invisible when
you expect
Am 26.10.2017 um 10:30 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if
you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la
"svn delete").
+1
On 10/26/2017 12:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.10.2017 um 12:38 schrieb Graham Leggett:
>> On 26 Oct 2017, at 12:31 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>
>>> i am not going to subscribe to every single devel list out there for
>>> single issues and had already
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if
> you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la
> "svn delete").
+1
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
> You could make a dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People
> wanting to "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS.
+1
10 matches
Mail list logo