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 bandwidth
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 was
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 but is
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 is
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 get
[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 to use
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
Disclaimer: This should really be addressed personally to egger, but after
writing this I thought that I should post it for general consumption
anyway. If you are easily offended, or if you think that SuSe "rulez", or
if you think that you are a "31337 g1mp h4x0r" then you shouldn't read
the rest
LOL! I'm starting to love this guy :).
As an interesting side note, you (tc) may be surprised to
know that your 1.1.32-1.2.0 patch was created and hosted on
a SuSE 6.4 box (namely my own).
Sweet irony :)
Lourens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
Disclaimer: This should really be addressed
Go Away
--
/--\ /--\
| Tal Danzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] |--| Linux by Libranet|
| Homepage:|--| The TOP Desktop |
| http://awpti.org/~tal|--| http://www.libranet.com |
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? Don't get it. My bandwidth (64K) and time are also limited and
still CVS is much faster than ftping and patching. And in addition you
get the benefit not having to care about patches and well, your
patches to the GIMP are also much easier
On 27 Dec, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know since you take time to answer my posts, I might as well too.
Compared to your "limited" 64k how does 9600 that disconnects every 5
minutes sound to you? And the fact that downloading something like a
full gimp 1.2.0 would take close to 2 or 3
[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, and you
I am not supposed to download 10mb of source code, I have been patching up
since like 1.1.20, no way, you can provide a good patch from 1.1.32 to
1.2.0.
thanks tc
--
・‥…━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━…‥・
timecop at japan.co.jp |
On 26 Dec, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not supposed to download 10mb of source code, I have been
patching up since like 1.1.20, no way, you can provide a good patch
from 1.1.32 to 1.2.0.
Why not use CVS and tags? Makes life much easier for both sides.
--
Servus,
Daniel
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Dec, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not supposed to download 10mb of source code, I have been
patching up since like 1.1.20, no way, you can provide a good patch
from 1.1.32 to 1.2.0.
Why not use CVS and tags? Makes life much easier
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:03:42AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not use CVS and tags? Makes life much easier for both sides.
Because
a) my bandwidth is limited
You can use -z9 with cvs, which means the transfer size is not larger than
downloadign a normal diff.
Therefore,
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 10:32:09PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
You can use -z9 with cvs, which means the transfer size is not larger than
downloadign a normal diff.
Doesn't CVS compress each file individually? The CVS protocol is quite
inefficient -- normally, I'd just do a CVS update on a shell
18 matches
Mail list logo
