Hi guys,
I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the
arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and
someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up
with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them
down, but hey,
Hi,
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600
Trenton Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the
arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and
someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up
with
On 7/23/06, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600, Trenton Adams wrote:
Let's say openldap had a problem. So, we decide to mask the latest
version of openldap, in an effort to roll back to the version that was
working. Well, we find out that openldap
On 7/23/06, Hans-Werner Hilse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600
Trenton Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the
arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and
someone was able to
On Sunday 23 July 2006 10:42, Trenton Adams wrote:
Hi guys,
I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the
arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and
someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up
with better reasoning for
5 matches
Mail list logo