On Thursday 31 May 2012 01:46:41 Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:19:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2012 03:58:56 Michał Górny wrote:
+# @USAGE: [all]
this is incorrect. the usage is:
all | files to remove
No, it's perfectly valid. Moreover, it even
On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:09:11 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
yet, if you read the actual code, you'll see:
+ [[ ${#} -le 1 ]] || die Invalid number of args to
${FUNCNAME}()
+ if [[ ${#} -eq 1 ]]; then
+ ...
+ fi
that means if more than 1 argument is passed,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/30/2012 04:31 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson
robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, the last mock conversion is still live and updating fairly
often:
Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
what *you* think are hard blockers for the migration?
The 6 hours it takes to clone the repo.
Maybe clone on server and distribute the initial repo as tarball.
//Peter
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
The 6 hours it takes to clone the repo.
IIRC someone already proposed that the packed repo could be offered
via normal download (or even BitTorrent).
Cheers,
Dirkjan
A function which determines correct .la files for removal and removes
them.
---
gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass | 92 -
1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass b/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass
index
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:31:06PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, the last mock conversion is still live and updating fairly often:
http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git;a=summary
Since
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:04:10AM -0400, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
On 05/30/2012 04:31 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson
robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, the last mock conversion is still live and updating fairly
often:
Michał Górny wrote:
There is a number of virtuals in Gentoo which switching active
implementation via eselect. However, most of the packages being
'alternative providers' don't seem to care about eselect at all. Is
that the correct thing to do, or maybe should every package ensure
that
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
1.
Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if
the repo ends up being pushed to different places with
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
1.
Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
1.
Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a
git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only
committing to master on the gentoo official repository, and any
on-the-side work on
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
- You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree.
- You have already pushed it to your github, signed
- It needs to be merged/rebased so that it applies on the Gentoo tree.
- If you force it to be a
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson
robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
1.
Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would
# Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org (31 May 2012)
# No longer needed.
# Masked for removal on 20120630
games-util/nforenum
Michał Górny писал 2012-05-31 23:33:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson
robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
1.
Discussion on merge policy.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:42PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
- You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree.
- You have already pushed it to your github, signed
If I have a github tree, that would probably be because I didn't have
push access to the official tree, so
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either
good or bad based on your perspective).
So, if 14 devs
On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away
William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:42PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
- You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree.
- You have already pushed it to your github, signed
If I have a github tree, that would
On 05/31/12 16:09, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?
The
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:26:58PM +, Duncan wrote:
William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted:
I don't know what's going to happen to all the overlays with the main
tree switch to git, but won't that break various overlay first
policies, say for the kde
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:58:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history
On 1 June 2012 07:52, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?
Commits itsels still will be signed
Do you know how git does this? Do you have experience/information you
can cite as to that
On 1 June 2012 07:58, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a
git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only
committing to
On 1 June 2012 08:26, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted:
Of course, if all the official overlays are converted to git branches of
the main tree... but won't they still require rebasing as they've already
been pushed? (This
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Just I haven't worked out what happens when the SHA1 of the 'parent'
header changes, which *will* change if the rebase is anything other
than a fast-forward.
If that SHA1 changes, the gpg signature will surely fail?
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that
I'm a
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:27:48 -0400
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 05/31/12 16:09, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
What would git
On 1 June 2012 14:49, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Just I haven't worked out what happens when the SHA1 of the 'parent'
header changes, which *will* change if the rebase is anything other
than a fast-forward.
32 matches
Mail list logo
