>> >Netsync relies on some underlying conventions on the use of TCP for a
>> >two-way connexion. Is there some other protocol that shares these
>> >conventions? If so I could tell the modem that this other protocol is
>> >now being used on port 4691.
>>
>> I would frankly start with tcpdump
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:03:21PM +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 10:51:21AM +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
> >> >Or is here some other way of achieving the same result -- letting
> >> >netsync work when I'm not at home?
> >>
> >> As an «adapt to the modem» approach, I
>On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 10:51:21AM +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
>> >Or is here some other way of achieving the same result -- letting
>> >netsync work when I'm not at home?
>>
>> As an «adapt to the modem» approach, I would consider forwarding SSH and
>> either port forwarding netsync in SSH
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 10:51:21AM +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
> >Or is here some other way of achieving the same result -- letting
> >netsync work when I'm not at home?
>
> As an «adapt to the modem» approach, I would consider forwarding SSH and
> either port forwarding netsync in SSH
>On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 05:51:38PM +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
>> >Is anything being done about this?
>> >Is the current botan so incompatible that it's hopeless to adapt?
>> >
>> >Or is monotone development and maintenance truly dead and I need to
>> >abandon ship and take what data I ca with
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 02:18:12PM +0100, CooSoft Support wrote:
> In my experience the merging in mtn presents the developer with far fewer
> conflicts to resolve. Plus you can merge multiple branches in one go by
> `baptising' those dev branches into the target developer/integration branch.
How
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 12:53:11AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> As people noted in last months / years... the worlds OS, apps,
> developers, and tech oriented operating system / repo / code / porters
> eyeballs users and interactors have more or less moved en masse
> to git, primarily on github, often
On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 05:51:38PM +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
> >Is anything being done about this?
> >Is the current botan so incompatible that it's hopeless to adapt?
> >
> >Or is monotone development and maintenance truly dead and I need to
> >abandon ship and take what data I ca with me?
>
In my experience the merging in mtn presents the developer with far
fewer conflicts to resolve. Plus you can merge multiple branches in one
go by `baptising' those dev branches into the target
developer/integration branch. So it doesn't stand out at first, you just
notice after a while that
I have used monotone for a few years and was fine with it.
I used to hear a lot and still hear now and then that the approach to
merging in monotone is / was superior to the approach taken in git. It is
something I have never understood. My experience with merges in monotone
is actually quite
I loved using Monotone and agree that the merging in mtn is far superior
to the run of the mill merging you get with git (after all it's site did
refer to it as a stupid/dumb content tracker). In fact mtn's merging is
the best I've ever used. I liked the fact that changesets were stored
>As people noted in last months / years... the worlds OS, apps,
>developers, and tech oriented operating system / repo / code / porters
>eyeballs users and interactors have more or less moved en masse
>to git, primarily on github, often augmented by running
>their own git copies in house if they
>Or is here some other way of achieving the same result -- letting
>netsync work when I'm not at home?
As an «adapt to the modem» approach, I would consider forwarding SSH and
either port forwarding netsync in SSH connection or directly using SSH
repository address (which means netsync through
13 matches
Mail list logo
