In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:48:22 -0700, Nathaniel
Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
njs Another option would be to move it out tree entirely, as a
njs separate add-on that implements the 'monotone usher interface' or
njs something. Doesn't seem like anything that really
In our repository we have a few revisions with no branch certificate.
It seems that they are caused by using
monotone disapprove REVISION
AFAICT monotone disapprove tries to figure out the branch
from the current working directory and uses that branch
to certify the disapprove node.
If the
I vote for in tree, and part of standard releases. Serving multiple
distinct projects a'la CVS from the same server comes up repeatedly on
the mailing list as something people would like to do. If monotone's
answer is to have a separate utility to do it (and I like what I've seen
of usher so far
Yuck. cert.cc:guess_branch(revision) defaults to using
app.branch_name() if one is set; ie. you are in a working copy.
There are 4 commands using guess_branch to decide how to cert a new
revision:
approve
disapprove
checkout
commit
I would argue that only commit should default to using the
Emile Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
approve
disapprove
checkout
commit
I would argue that only commit should default to using the working copy
value if one is set. approve and disapprove both take a revision as a
specific argument; I can sort of see using the value of the working copy
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 18:50 +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
Emile Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would argue that only commit should default to using the working copy
value if one is set. approve and disapprove both take a revision as a
specific argument; I can sort of see using the value
Emile Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yuck. cert.cc:guess_branch(revision) defaults to using
app.branch_name() if one is set; ie. you are in a working copy.
There are 4 commands using guess_branch to decide how to cert a new
revision:
approve
disapprove
checkout
commit
From these only
Hi,
the two attached patches allow me to build Boost and monotone with GCC
3.4 on FreeBSD 4.x. I hope somebody besides me will find them useful.
Vaclav Haisman
--- Makefile.orig Tue Mar 22 18:02:38 2005
+++ /usr/ports/devel/boost/Makefile Tue Oct 25 22:17:19 2005
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
So can I just use another name for the directory besides BUG? Or do I have
to undo what I have done first? And if so, how do I undo it?
-peter
On 10/25/05 4:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:15:12AM -0400, Peter Portante wrote:
Nathaniel,
This is
Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 07:53:23PM +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
Emile Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yuck. cert.cc:guess_branch(revision) defaults to using
app.branch_name() if one is set; ie. you are in a working copy.
There are 4 commands
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 06:13:53PM -0400, Peter Portante wrote:
So can I just use another name for the directory besides BUG? Or do I have
Yes.
to undo what I have done first? And if so, how do I undo it?
I'm assuming you still have a working copy whose MT/work contains the
text:
rename_file
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:34:54AM +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
approve is short for add a branch certificate; that's all it does.
So I think it should add a branch certificate :-).
I stand corrected. I never use approve and somehow I thought
it
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 01:16 +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
tbrownaw pattern net.example.project.{security,private}*
tbrownaw allow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tbrownaw allow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tbrownaw
tbrownaw pattern net.example.{public,project}*
tbrownaw others allow
Random
13 matches
Mail list logo
