On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:21:07PM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
as you might already know, I'm interested in correcting the cvs_import
branchpoint problem. As a first step, I have defined a test by improving
the cvsimport3 testcase to also check for branches and ancestory.
Oh, cool. We
Hello,
these people [1] are experiencing some segfault when importing. It might
be worth to help them... It would be nice it they could finish the
evaluation. But I doubt monotone can beat mercurial in terms of the
initial pull time ;-)
[1]
Hi,
I'm taking a look at the current revision approval possibilities, and
there are things I don't quite understand. Also, it looks like this
hasn't been looked at for ages.
First of all, we probably need to rewrite the example for the
get_revision_cert_trust, as it currently uses the ancestor
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
I've been rethinking. Ignore that, changing the approve command will
not really make things better, because then we need to check that the
value of an approved cert matches any available branch cert or the
current branch,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:15:13 -0600, Timothy
Brownawell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tbrownaw On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
wrote:
tbrownaw What would be needed is perhaps have approve avoid adding
tbrownaw a branch cert for a branch
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:17:54AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something you should experiment with, by the way, is increasing
the page size so that more records fit on one page and you get
larger fanout. Do you get better performance if you rebuild
your database with say a 16K or 32K
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 22:39 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:15:13 -0600, Timothy
Brownawell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
tbrownaw On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
wrote:
tbrownaw What would be
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:39:02PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Yeah, the only problem, as far as I see it, is that approve takes
--branch, so for example, I could very easily say something like:
monotone approve --branch=net.venge.monotone.approved.linux \
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I did a little bit of experiment, and found out that I had
misunderstood what the heads of a branch with a disconnected graph
would be. That was basically my worry with this scheme.
My mantra for the night: experiment a little
Daniel Carosone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems a little odd to me to build a centralised, online
information system for tracking state and documenting activity around
and about source code in a distributed and disconnected VCS.
Ah yes, you're right. But in the system I envision, the
10 matches
Mail list logo
