Markus Wanner wrote:
Then we also had database
migrations, where a one-way upgarde is possible, but not backwards.
Well, not exactly. I did (manually) downgrade a database, one time. =)
--
Lapo Luchini - http://lapo.it/
___
Monotone-devel mailing
Markus Wanner wrote:
On 11/24/2010 09:56 PM, Richard Levitte wrote:
0.99 is different enough from 0.48 to deserve being the upcoming 1.0,
Huh? I'm sorry if that's ignorant, but I didn't realize any change in
0.99, except for it being slower, but less annoying with the commit
message editor
On 11/25/2010 06:10 PM, Lapo Luchini wrote:
Well, for me 0.47→0.99 had the *incompatibility* you are talking about,
in the instance of the changed method to synchronize with server which
needed a change of habits from:
mtn sy lapo.it 'it.*'
to
mtn sy 'mtn://lapo.it/?it.*'
IIRC the
Richard Levitte wrote:
tbrownaw Option 1 (even/odd)
tbrownaw Option 2 (.9x as rc)
Shall we vote? In that case, I vote for option 2.
I don't really like 90 as a magic number, but OTOH option 1 doesn't
have a clear way to say it's a pre-release of next version; both options
are perfectly OK
Richard Levitte wrote:
How does the algorithm compare when one of the version has a segment
empty and the other doesn't in corresponding positions?
FreeBSD has got an official system tool to check the ordering of two
package revisions, which supports most of the FreeBSD Ports without need
for
Zack Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, I should have time to do that this evening or tomorrow.
--with-system-pcre works ok, does it?
(yes, to a quick test it seems to me it is)
In that case, I'll probably use that in next FreeBSD port update, I
think it's better that way, as security bugs are then followed
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Lapo Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zack Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, I should have time to do that this evening or tomorrow.
--with-system-pcre works ok, does it?
(yes, to a quick test it seems to me it is)
I'm considering turning that on for the Debian
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:32:27 -0500, Zack
Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
zackw Before a release we should pick up pcre 7.6, which has some
zackw security bugfixes in it. I don't think we're vulnerable as we
zackw never use UTF-8 mode, but it would be best to avoid
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zackw Before a release we should pick up pcre 7.6, which has some
zackw security bugfixes in it.
Good point, are you up for it?
Yeah, I should have time to do that this evening or tomorrow.
zw
Before a release we should pick up pcre 7.6, which has some security
bugfixes in it. I don't think we're vulnerable as we never use UTF-8
mode, but it would be best to avoid potential worries.
zw
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:54:42 +0100, Koen Kooi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
koen -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
koen Hash: SHA1
koen
koen Markus Schiltknecht schreef:
koen | I'd personally vote for a release this week. If Zack considers nvm.e.e
koen | mature enough to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Markus Schiltknecht schreef:
| Hi,
|
| Richard Levitte wrote:
| Either way it goes, I wasn't considering waiting ENDLESSLY. I was
| rather pondering if I should make a release this week (would be
| friday) or next (would be that friday then).
|
|
Hi,
Koen Kooi wrote:
Releases are cheap[1]
Not sure how much Richard and the downstream packet managers agree with
that, even given [1].
[1] Provided people keep NEWS and translations up to date without
Richard having to poke you ;)
Regards
Markus
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Hi,
Koen Kooi wrote:
Releases are cheap[1]
Not sure how much Richard and the downstream packet managers agree with
that, even given [1].
Provided it continues to build with the same compiler and so on (which
wasn't so, for example, for AMD64 + gcc3 + 0.37 :-P)
William Uther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Can there be an ignore this revision cert? It would be like a
testresult cert only it would cause monotone to ignore that
revision.
That's much what I had in mind, yes.
That would support other things too (those things that people use
git's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:58:24 +, Bruce
Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
monotone Presumably this was related to the host move, but it doesn't
monotone look resolved yet---even the buildbots that are connected
monotone appear not to be attempting to build.
The
Thomas Moschny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
me nvm.cvssync.candidates was merged? When did that happen?
349e77727a794a01eb0208c4b12b05c7bc31baac
349e77727a794a01eb0208c4b12b05c7bc31baac is in nvm.cvssync.candidates only,
but
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:41:51 +, Bruce
Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
monotone Thomas Moschny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
monotone
monotone On Tuesday 27 February 2007, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
monotone me nvm.cvssync.candidates was merged? When did
Bruce Stephens schrieb:
If we disapprove this revision, can the branch be merged into nvm
later on?
I think the files that were added in that revision (some test files?)
would then be permanently dead, so no.
Yeah, I already thought something like that. I had a similar problem
with one of
On 28/02/2007, at 1:02 AM, Bruce Stephens wrote:
Thomas Keller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker schrieb:
[...]
Hmm, you're right, and still, one of its children,
d9df3690ffc222d7f6b1a65c34bfdfdcd6ad6735, is in nvm...
And its entirely my fault! Now how can we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lapo Luchini wrote:
Take in account that there is a known bug using reverse (that is, from
older to newer) 'log' without --no-graph, when a revision has more than
2 childs.
WRONG: there is no such bug (and never was, in fact), I only thought it
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Yep. I ended up deciding to make the release based on revision
1ce6710ef7aebc6dff09ca1bf2a54e7907fe9959, which is just before the
merge where log change got merged into, eh, the line of development I
was following ;-)
OK, I'll make sure it will be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:05:19 +0100, Lapo Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
lapo Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
lapo Yep. I ended up deciding to make the release based on revision
lapo 1ce6710ef7aebc6dff09ca1bf2a54e7907fe9959, which is just before the
lapo
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:00:59 +0100, Lapo Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
lapo Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
lapo Yeah, I see what you mean. And still, I think I'd prefer to
lapo release what we have now. And since you basically gave me a
lapo blank
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Considering there seems to be some instability with this new feature,
would find it very horrible if we, for some time, transformed the
feature to be opt-in (with --graph) rather than opt-out (--no-graph)?
Instability as in the known bug I was talking
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:30:18AM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
In any case if it was for me I'd rather release without the feature than
releasing 0.33 with opt-out and then 0.34 with opt-in, it's not nice to
change the UI when not strictly necessary, isn't it?
It's not so much a change, as just
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:30:18 +0100, Lapo Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
lapo In any case if it was for me I'd rather release without the
lapo feature than releasing 0.33 with opt-out and then 0.34 with
lapo opt-in, it's not nice to change the UI when not strictly
Don't be too bothered by people complaining about change. It's not like monotone has gone 1.0 yet; IMHO if they have a problem with
change they're not paying attention to the alpha/beta status. The stability baseline should be set at major revisions.
Joel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Chad Walstrom wrote:
Justin Patrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*18*? Wow, that's a bit behind the times. A lot has changed.
It's not so hard to imagine. For example, Debian stable ships with
Monotone 0.18, and some people are happy working with packages only
found in the stable release of
29 matches
Mail list logo
