Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Chris Friesen
Petr Baudis wrote: Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter Well, yes, but the last merge point search may not be so simple: A --1---26---7 B\ `-4-. / C `-3-5' Now, when at 7, your last merge point is not 1, but 2. ...and this is obviously wrong,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter where Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter > where Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter where Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: ..snip.. > > Basically, when you look at merge(1) : > > > > SYNOPSIS > >merge [ options ] file1 file2 file3 > >

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter > where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > >Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter > > >where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter where Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter where Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...

Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter where Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: ..snip.. Basically, when you look at merge(1) : SYNOPSIS merge [ options ] file1 file2 file3 DESCRIPTION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter where Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter where Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Chris Friesen
Petr Baudis wrote: Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter Well, yes, but the last merge point search may not be so simple: A --1---26---7 B\ `-4-. / C `-3-5' Now, when at 7, your last merge point is not 1, but 2. ...and this is obviously wrong,

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > >Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter > >where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > >..snip.. > >> Graydon Hoare. (By

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:45:38 +0200, Peter Baudis wrote: > Hello, > please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Sorry. I read the list from a web site that does not show the cc lists. I'll try to cc more people from the relevant discussions though. On the other hand, I've dropped Linus

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... ..snip.. > Graydon Hoare. (By the way, I would prefer that git just punt to > user level programs for diff

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Petr Baudis: >> Almost certainly, v3 will be incompatible with v2 because it adds >> further restrictions. This means that your proposal would result in >> software which is not redistributable by third parties. > > Hmm, what would be actually the point in introducing further > restrictions?

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On 2005-04-11, Linus Torvalds wrote: >I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one [...] You may want to use a file from GPL'ed monotone that implements a substantial diff optimization described in the August 1989 paper by Sun Wu, Udi Manber and Gene Myers ("An

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:40:00AM CEST, I got a letter where Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > * Ingo Molnar: > > > is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then > > once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits >

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Ingo Molnar: > is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then > once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits > (new files, rewrites, substantial contributions, etc.) get a v3 > copyright? (and the collection itself would be v3 too) That

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in > a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. > > I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, > but I was wondering if anybody

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, but I was wondering if anybody really

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Ingo Molnar: is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits (new files, rewrites, substantial contributions, etc.) get a v3 copyright? (and the collection itself would be v3 too) That method

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:40:00AM CEST, I got a letter where Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... * Ingo Molnar: is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits (new

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On 2005-04-11, Linus Torvalds wrote: I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one [...] You may want to use a file from GPL'ed monotone that implements a substantial diff optimization described in the August 1989 paper by Sun Wu, Udi Manber and Gene Myers (An O(NP)

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Petr Baudis: Almost certainly, v3 will be incompatible with v2 because it adds further restrictions. This means that your proposal would result in software which is not redistributable by third parties. Hmm, what would be actually the point in introducing further restrictions? Anyone who

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter where Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... ..snip.. Graydon Hoare. (By the way, I would prefer that git just punt to user level programs for diff and

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:45:38 +0200, Peter Baudis wrote: Hello, please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Sorry. I read the list from a web site that does not show the cc lists. I'll try to cc more people from the relevant discussions though. On the other hand, I've dropped Linus from

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter where Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter where Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... ..snip.. Graydon Hoare. (By the way, I would

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Nur Hussein
> Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a > COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I think GPLv2 would create the least amount of objection in the community, so I'd probably want to go with that. Nur Hussein - To

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter > where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > ..snip.. > > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > > name suggests, and which should

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... ..snip.. > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > name suggests, and which should be faster than the 0.48 sec you see.. Am I just

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 02:20:52AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a > COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. > > I'm inclined to go with

GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, but I was wondering if anybody really had strong opinions. For example, I'd really

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Randy.Dunlap
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:23:11 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote: | Petr wrote: | > That reminds me, is there any | > tool which will take .rej files and throw them into the file to create | > rcsmerge-like conflicts? | | Check out 'wiggle' | http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ or Chris

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:46:50AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > (BTW, it would be useful to have a tool which just blindly takes what > > you give it on input and throws it to an

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:39:02PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > > name suggests, and which should be

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > (BTW, it would be useful to have a tool which just blindly takes what > you give it on input and throws it to an object of given type; I will > need to construct arbitrary commits during the rebuild if I'm to keep > the correct dates.) Hah. That's

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Paul Jackson
Petr wrote: > That reminds me, is there any > tool which will take .rej files and throw them into the file to create > rcsmerge-like conflicts? Check out 'wiggle' http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ -- I won't rest till it's the best ...

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:10:58AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > I currently already do a merge when you track someone's source - it will > > throw away your previous HEAD record

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > I currently already do a merge when you track someone's source - it will > throw away your previous HEAD record though Not only that, it doesn't do what I consider a "merge". A real merge should have two or more parents. The "commit-tree" command

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > > bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > name suggests, and which should be faster than the 0.48 sec you see.. Actually, I changed things around. Everybody hated the "<" ">" lines, so I put a changed thing on a

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:13:19PM CEST, I got a letter where Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:45:22PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > > bogging it down so awfully

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Paul Jackson
Good lord - you don't need to use arrays for this. The old-fashioned ways have their ways. Both the 'set' command and the 'read' command can split args and assign to distinct variable names. Try something like the following: diff-tree -r $id1 $id2 | sed -e '/^/ / }' -e 's/./& /' |

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s ;-). I do about > 15 forks per change, I guess, and for some reason cut takes a long of > time on its own. Heh. Can you

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Sean
On Sun, April 10, 2005 12:55 pm, Linus Torvalds said: > Larry was ok with the idea to make my export format actually be natively > supported by BK (ie the same way you have "bk export -tpatch"), but > Tridge wanted to instead get at the native data and be difficult about > it. As a result, I can

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:45:22PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s ;-). I do about > 15 forks per change, I guess, and for some reason cut takes a long of > time on its own.

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:45:12PM CEST, I got a letter where Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > > > > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > > > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in > > > > > > $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` >p > > > real5m37.434s > > > user1m27.113s

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:33:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in > > > > $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id`

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in > > $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` >p > real5m37.434s > user1m27.113s > sys

[ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, so I "released" git-pasky-0.1, my set of patches and scripts upon Linus' git, aimed at human usability and to an extent a SCM-like usage. You can get it at http://pasky.or.cz/~pasky/dev/git/git-pasky-base.tar.bz2 and after unpacking and building (make) do git pull

[ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, so I released git-pasky-0.1, my set of patches and scripts upon Linus' git, aimed at human usability and to an extent a SCM-like usage. You can get it at http://pasky.or.cz/~pasky/dev/git/git-pasky-base.tar.bz2 and after unpacking and building (make) do git pull

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` p real5m37.434s user1m27.113s sys

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:33:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Petr Baudis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` p

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` p real5m37.434s user1m27.113s sys

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:45:12PM CEST, I got a letter where Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... * Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:45:22PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s ;-). I do about 15 forks per change, I guess, and for some reason cut takes a long of time on its own.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Sean
On Sun, April 10, 2005 12:55 pm, Linus Torvalds said: Larry was ok with the idea to make my export format actually be natively supported by BK (ie the same way you have bk export -tpatch), but Tridge wanted to instead get at the native data and be difficult about it. As a result, I can now

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s ;-). I do about 15 forks per change, I guess, and for some reason cut takes a long of time on its own. Heh. Can you pull my

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Paul Jackson
Good lord - you don't need to use arrays for this. The old-fashioned ways have their ways. Both the 'set' command and the 'read' command can split args and assign to distinct variable names. Try something like the following: diff-tree -r $id1 $id2 | sed -e '/^/ { N; s/\n/ / }' -e

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:13:19PM CEST, I got a letter where Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:45:22PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is bogging it down so awfully (doing

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: Can you pull my current repo, which has diff-tree -R that does what the name suggests, and which should be faster than the 0.48 sec you see.. Actually, I changed things around. Everybody hated the lines, so I put a changed thing on a line of

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: I currently already do a merge when you track someone's source - it will throw away your previous HEAD record though Not only that, it doesn't do what I consider a merge. A real merge should have two or more parents. The commit-tree command already

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Paul Jackson
Petr wrote: That reminds me, is there any tool which will take .rej files and throw them into the file to create rcsmerge-like conflicts? Check out 'wiggle' http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ -- I won't rest till it's the best ...

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:10:58AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: I currently already do a merge when you track someone's source - it will throw away your previous HEAD record though Not

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: (BTW, it would be useful to have a tool which just blindly takes what you give it on input and throws it to an object of given type; I will need to construct arbitrary commits during the rebuild if I'm to keep the correct dates.) Hah. That's what

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:39:02PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: Can you pull my current repo, which has diff-tree -R that does what the name suggests, and which should be faster than the

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:46:50AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: (BTW, it would be useful to have a tool which just blindly takes what you give it on input and throws it to an object of

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Randy.Dunlap
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:23:11 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote: | Petr wrote: | That reminds me, is there any | tool which will take .rej files and throw them into the file to create | rcsmerge-like conflicts? | | Check out 'wiggle' | http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ or Chris

GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, but I was wondering if anybody really had strong opinions. For example, I'd really

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 02:20:52AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I'm inclined to go with GPLv2

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... ..snip.. Can you pull my current repo, which has diff-tree -R that does what the name suggests, and which should be faster than the 0.48 sec you see.. Am I just missing

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... ..snip.. Can you pull my current repo, which has diff-tree -R that does what the name suggests, and which should be faster

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Nur Hussein
Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I think GPLv2 would create the least amount of objection in the community, so I'd probably want to go with that. Nur Hussein - To