On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> It is almost, but not completely unlike it. A simple ChangeLog is a lot
> easier ...
>
>
> (Why are people now trying to add middleware layers to indirect the
> problem to become invisible in a huge machinery? This is
On 03/02/2016 08:48 PM, malc wrote:
> I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't
> need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the
> github API directly...
>
> The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse
> $PWD to set the path
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:48 PM, malc wrote:
> I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't
> need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the
> github API directly...
>
The main downside to using github would be that you don't get a
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> For example, the message of the initial commit 56bd759 appears in some
> 18000 files, which accounts for 25 MiB.
Not discounting the general issue, I wouldn't count the initial
commit. All that space will get taken up
I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't
need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the
github API directly...
The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse
$PWD to set the path argument...)
curl
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries
>> generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we had
>> only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries
> generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we
> had only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs
> were
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format
> quite yet, but did so this afternoon:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/201602-portage-survey/
Thank you.
> Some remarks about question #2 and #3:
> Q2: Reduce local disk
On 03/02/2016 02:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is
>> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries?
> I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is
> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries?
I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format quite
yet, but did so this afternoon:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> http://goo.gl/forms/5riWkN8VMK
> I've put together a quick survey about a number of potential changes
> to the rsync distribution that have been bike-shedded about in
> various IRC channels and the mailing lists for some time now.
> Questions:
>
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:46:26 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > - Augment/replace rsync with git repo that has thick-Manifests, changelogs,
> > metadata
> >
>
> You're missing an option to replace
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - Augment/replace rsync with git repo that has thick-Manifests, changelogs,
> metadata
>
You're missing an option to replace rsync with a git repo that has
metadata, but not the other stuff.
Of course, this already
13 matches
Mail list logo