On 11/29/2012 11:12 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
This seems to be stalled because of a misconception. Can I please get a second opinion? Please?
I'm afraid I don't understand the problem well enough to offer an opinion -- maybe it's because I don't understand the desire to do maintenance without git -- but I did look over the patch and noticed that it used ">& /dev/null", which isn't portable; it should use ">/dev/null 2>&1".
