For the record, mostly... (this is how it already is in git-pasky-0.5)
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:07:36AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > Now, what about git branch and git update for switching between
> > branches? I think this is the
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:17:00AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > > Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:47:55AM CEST, I got a letter
> > >
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:07:35AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > Actually, what about if git pull outside of repository did what git
> > clone does now? I'd kinda like clone instead of fork too.
>
> This seems like the best solution
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:17:00AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> > Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:47:55AM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that..
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:16:12AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering, whether each tree should be fixed to a certain branch.
>
> I'm wondering why you talk about "branches" at a
5 matches
Mail list logo
