Petr Baudis wrote, On 11/21/2007 04:18 PM:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> ...
>> tags
>> 4 days ago v2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3
>> 2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2
>> 4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1
>> 6 weeks ago v2.6.23
Kay Sievers wrote, On 11/21/2007 05:06 PM:
> On Nov 21, 2007 8:52 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:20:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I don't know git, but it seems, at least
Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> ...
>> tags
>> 4 days ago v2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3
>> 2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2
>> 4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1
>> 6 weeks ago v2.6.23 Linux 2.6.23
>>
On Nov 21, 2007 8:52 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:20:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
> > > shouldn't be
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> ...
> tags
> 4 days agov2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3
> 2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2
> 4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1
> 6 weeks ago v2.6.23 Linux 2.6.23
>
> which drives me crazy,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> Of course, you are right, and I probably miss something, but to be
> sure we think about the same thing let's look at some example: so, I
> open a page with current Linus' tree, go to something titled:
> /pub/scm /
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
Of course, you are right, and I probably miss something, but to be
sure we think about the same thing let's look at some example: so, I
open a page with current Linus' tree, go to something titled:
/pub/scm /
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
tags
4 days agov2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3
2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2
4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1
6 weeks ago v2.6.23 Linux 2.6.23
which drives me crazy, because,
On Nov 21, 2007 8:52 AM, Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:20:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
shouldn't be so 'heavy'.
Petr Baudis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
tags
4 days ago v2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3
2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2
4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1
6 weeks ago v2.6.23 Linux 2.6.23
which drives
Kay Sievers wrote, On 11/21/2007 05:06 PM:
On Nov 21, 2007 8:52 AM, Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:20:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for
Petr Baudis wrote, On 11/21/2007 04:18 PM:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
tags
4 days ago v2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3
2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2
4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1
6 weeks ago v2.6.23 Linux
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:20:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
> > shouldn't be so 'heavy'. It could be a 'simple' translation of commit
> > date by querying
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
> shouldn't be so 'heavy'. It could be a 'simple' translation of commit
> date by querying a small database with kernel versions & dates.
If I create a commit in
Petr Baudis wrote, On 11/20/2007 10:59 PM:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:20:42PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> I see gitweb is much more usable (faster) than a few months ago, but
>> there is one thing a bit problematic: in the history of patches I'm
>> very often interested in which
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:20:42PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> I see gitweb is much more usable (faster) than a few months ago, but
> there is one thing a bit problematic: in the history of patches I'm
> very often interested in which kernel version of Linus' tree the patch
> appeared
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:20:42PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I see gitweb is much more usable (faster) than a few months ago, but
there is one thing a bit problematic: in the history of patches I'm
very often interested in which kernel version of Linus' tree the patch
appeared for
Petr Baudis wrote, On 11/20/2007 10:59 PM:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:20:42PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I see gitweb is much more usable (faster) than a few months ago, but
there is one thing a bit problematic: in the history of patches I'm
very often interested in which kernel
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
shouldn't be so 'heavy'. It could be a 'simple' translation of commit
date by querying a small database with kernel versions dates.
If I create a commit in my
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:20:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
shouldn't be so 'heavy'. It could be a 'simple' translation of commit
date by querying a
20 matches
Mail list logo