On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:59:19 +, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> Any other oks for this?
OK millert@
- todd
Any other oks for this?
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:58:27AM +0800, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> Thanks again for checking this.
> Correcting ci.c ...
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:53:58PM +, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > Sorry, the one I pointed out in ci.c is wrong:
> >
> > >
On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:07:18 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I think it should be moved into Attic. It's not like we've been nice to
> > > the pcc tree-import either after it lacked attention.
> >
> > I agree, it has been unlinked from the build for more than 5 years.
>
> I don't agree. I sti
> > I think it should be moved into Attic. It's not like we've been nice to
> > the pcc tree-import either after it lacked attention.
>
> I agree, it has been unlinked from the build for more than 5 years.
I don't agree. I still have some hope.
Yes, it has problems. But go look at the code in
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 01:10:21PM +0100, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:17:40AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2015/11/01 08:03, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > > Some did for a while but it has some nasty bugs and nobody is working on
> > > fixing it.
> >
> > Some used
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:17:40AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/11/01 08:03, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > Some did for a while but it has some nasty bugs and nobody is working on
> > fixing it.
>
> Some used it on amd64 for a while to avoid checkout failures due to
> running into memor
On 2015/11/01 08:03, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> Some did for a while but it has some nasty bugs and nobody is working on
> fixing it.
Some used it on amd64 for a while to avoid checkout failures due to
running into memory limits, but then I tracked it down and increased
the limit in CVSROOT/option
never going to rise from the dead.
> >
> > Original message
> > From: Tobias Stoeckmann
> > Date:30/10/2015 10:06 (GMT+00:00)
> > To: "Michael W. Bombardieri"
> > Cc: Nicholas Marriott ,tech@openbsd.org
> > Subject: Re:
> From: Tobias Stoeckmann
> Date:30/10/2015 10:06 (GMT+00:00)
> To: "Michael W. Bombardieri"
> Cc: Nicholas Marriott ,tech@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcs: buf_free/rcsnum_free
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:52:02AM +0800, Michael W. Bombardie
Sorry, the one I pointed out in ci.c is wrong:
> rcs_close(pb.file);
> - if (rev_str != NULL)
> - rcsnum_free(pb.newrev);
> + rcsnum_free(pb.newrev);
> pb.newrev = NULL;
pb.newrev can be changed by checkin_init or checkin_upd
I think it is never going to rise from the dead.
Original message
From: Tobias Stoeckmann
Date:30/10/2015 10:06 (GMT+00:00)
To: "Michael W. Bombardieri"
Cc: Nicholas Marriott ,tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcs: buf_free/rcsnum_free
On Fri, Oct 30, 201
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:52:02AM +0800, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> Sorry. Here is new diff. Hopefully I haven't missed anything else.
You missed OpenCVS, which shares the same code base.
But is OpenCVS worth it anymore?
Even a harsher question: Is it time to tedu it?
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:54:09AM +, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> Hi
>
> You missed ci.c:316 and a few in rcs.c and rcsdiff.c
Sorry. Here is new diff. Hopefully I haven't missed anything else.
Index: buf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/sr
Hi
You missed ci.c:316 and a few in rcs.c and rcsdiff.c
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:50:56PM +0800, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> Hi tech@,
>
> In case it's considered useful...
> Submitting patch to shave a few lines from rcs(1) by allowing
> buf_free() and rcsnum_free() to ignore NULL pointe
Hi tech@,
In case it's considered useful...
Submitting patch to shave a few lines from rcs(1) by allowing
buf_free() and rcsnum_free() to ignore NULL pointer.
- Michael
Index: buf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/buf.c,v
retrie
15 matches
Mail list logo
