The google's gmail made a crap my last message that it did wrap
my message of X lines to the crap of (X+o) lines misconfiguring
my original lines of the message.
I don't see the motives of Google crapping my original lines
of the messages that i had sended.
--
To unsubscribe from this
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:59PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> > On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
> > > It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
> > > the binary
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:59PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
> > the binary differences are between the pack files are. git clone
> > should (with the
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:08:35PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>
> But if the repos are aggressively repacked then the bit to bit differences
> are not ~2 MiB.
It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
the binary differences are between the pack files are. git clone
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:08:35PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >
> > But if the repos are aggressively repacked then the bit to bit differences
> > are not ~2 MiB.
>
>
> It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:47:07AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >
> > Yesterday, i had git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 777 MiB )
> > Today, i've git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 779 MiB )
> >
> > Both repos are different
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:48PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> I find that the sequence of changes I make is pretty much unrelated to the
> sequence of changes that end up in the project's history, because my
> changes as I make them involve writing a lot of stubs (so I can build) and
>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:37:14PM -0600, Chase Venters wrote:
> I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
> habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
> that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:37:14PM -0600, Chase Venters wrote:
> It seems to me that having multiple working trees (effectively, cloning
> the "master" repository every time I need to make anything but a trivial
> change) would be most effective under git as well as it doesn't require
>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:49AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> On 2008/2/23, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:49AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
On 2008/2/23, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:37:14PM -0600, Chase Venters wrote:
It seems to me that having multiple working trees (effectively, cloning
the master repository every time I need to make anything but a trivial
change) would be most effective under git as well as it doesn't require
creating
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:37:14PM -0600, Chase Venters wrote:
I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:48PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
I find that the sequence of changes I make is pretty much unrelated to the
sequence of changes that end up in the project's history, because my
changes as I make them involve writing a lot of stubs (so I can build) and
then
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:47:07AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Yesterday, i had git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 777 MiB )
Today, i've git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 779 MiB )
Both repos are different binaries , and i
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:08:35PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
But if the repos are aggressively repacked then the bit to bit differences
are not ~2 MiB.
It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
the
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:08:35PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
But if the repos are aggressively repacked then the bit to bit differences
are not ~2 MiB.
It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
the binary differences are between the pack files are. git clone
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:59PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
the binary differences are between the pack files are. git clone
should (with the --reference
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:59PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It shouldn't matter how aggressively the repositories are packed or what
the binary differences are between the
The google's gmail made a crap my last message that it did wrap
my message of X lines to the crap of (X+o) lines misconfiguring
my original lines of the message.
I don't see the motives of Google crapping my original lines
of the messages that i had sended.
--
To unsubscribe from this
Daniel Barkalow wrote:
I find that the sequence of changes I make is pretty much unrelated to the
sequence of changes that end up in the project's history, because my
changes as I make them involve writing a lot of stubs (so I can build) and
then filling them out. It's beneficial to have
On 23-02-08 01:37, Chase Venters wrote:
Or perhaps you create a temporary topical branch for each thing you are
working on, and commit arbitrary changes then checkout another branch
when you need to change gears, finally --squashing the intermediate
commits when a particular piece of work is
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Chase Venters wrote:
> I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
> habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
> that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
> been specifically
On 2008/2/23, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > >
> > >> >do you tend to clone the entire repository
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> >> >do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
> >> >of separate working directories
> >>
>
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> >do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
>> >of separate working directories
>>
>> Too time consuming on consumer drives with projects the size of Linux.
>
> git
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
> >of separate working directories
>
> Too time consuming on consumer drives with projects the size of Linux.
git clone -l -s
is not particulary slow...
--
To
On Feb 22 2008 18:37, Chase Venters wrote:
>
>I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
>habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
>that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
>been specifically
2008/2/23, Chase Venters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ... blablabla
>
> My question is: If you're working on multiple things at once, do you tend to
> clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series of separate working
> directories and do your work there, then pull that work (possibly
I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
been specifically covered).
My question is: If you're working on
I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
been specifically covered).
My question is: If you're working on
2008/2/23, Chase Venters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... blablabla
My question is: If you're working on multiple things at once, do you tend to
clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series of separate working
directories and do your work there, then pull that work (possibly
On Feb 22 2008 18:37, Chase Venters wrote:
I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
been specifically
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
of separate working directories
Too time consuming on consumer drives with projects the size of Linux.
git clone -l -s
is not particulary slow...
--
To
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
of separate working directories
Too time consuming on consumer drives with projects the size of Linux.
git clone -l -s
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
of separate working directories
Too time consuming
On 2008/2/23, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Chase Venters wrote:
I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what
habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
been specifically
On 23-02-08 01:37, Chase Venters wrote:
Or perhaps you create a temporary topical branch for each thing you are
working on, and commit arbitrary changes then checkout another branch
when you need to change gears, finally --squashing the intermediate
commits when a particular piece of work is
Daniel Barkalow wrote:
I find that the sequence of changes I make is pretty much unrelated to the
sequence of changes that end up in the project's history, because my
changes as I make them involve writing a lot of stubs (so I can build) and
then filling them out. It's beneficial to have
40 matches
Mail list logo
