Hi folks
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:51:21PM -0500, Tom Rathborne wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:45:18PM -0500, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> > > > I don't see a public rsync server for gimp, cvs or otherwise.
> > > > Pe
Chris;
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:45:18PM -0500, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> > > I don't see a public rsync server for gimp, cvs or otherwise.
> > > Perhaps this might be an acceptable option for people with
> > > modest bandw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote:
>
> > I don't see a public rsync server for gimp, cvs or otherwise. Perhaps
> > this might be an acceptable option for people with modest bandwidth
> > capabilities.
>
> There are anonymous CVS servers for the GIMP.
Yes, yes t
On 10 January, 2001 - Raphael Quinet sent me these 2.1K bytes:
> Unfortunately, none of the three addresses mentioned for anoncvs
> allowed me to get any files. One of them failed because of a server
> configuration problem, another one could be reached but did not
> respond, and the last one wa
Raphael Quinet wrote:
> Two days ago, I installed a new modem on my home PC because I thought
> that after having spent several years working with semi-obsolete
> released versions of the source code, I should get the bleeding edge
> and use CVS from home (no firewall problems). So I tried to ge
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> They do; if we started now to switch over to deltas then quite a few
> people would complain about that. I definitely see the point, I'm behind a
> very narrow pipe as well so I prefer patches, too, but what
On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote:
>> Patchsets also have a big problem which timecop already
>> noticed: They don't contain binary files or patches to
>> such and thus a patched tree might miss quite a few important
>> files after a while. xdelta wouldn't cause that particular
>> problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Patchsets also have a big problem which timecop already
> noticed: They don't contain binary files or patches to
> such and thus a patched tree might miss quite a few important
> files after a while. xdelta wouldn't cause that particular
> problem but is harder t
On 26 Dec, Garry R. Osgood wrote:
> The tarballs and patch-sets are really meant for end-users
> who prefer to compile from source, but don't otherwise
> desire to get involved in maintenance and so don't have
> a strong motivation to keep a bleeding-edge source tree
> around. Patch sets are publ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I got off my lazy arse and made a patch. I have no idea
> whether I did things correctly, I just downloaded the gimp-
> 1.1.32.tar.bz2 and gimp-1.2.0.tar.bz2 files, unpacked them,
> did diff -u -r gimp-1.1.32 gimp-1.2.0 >gimp-patch, then
> bzip2'd that.
>
> It's 534kb,
10 matches
Mail list logo
