On 18/08/10 17:14, Ben Fritz wrote:
On Aug 17, 4:56 pm, Matt Wozniskim...@drexel.edu wrote:
Most users don't get their vim from source control at all - they get
it from binaries or source provided by their distro.
Developers would want to get the bleeding edge version, and we can
assume
On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, James Vega wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think what would normally happen is to merge the development branch
back into the default branch. But just like the problems you have
On Saturday 21 August 2010 11:48:23 Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, James Vega wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar
wrote:
I think what would normally happen is to merge the
development branch
On Saturday 21 August 2010 11:48:23 Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, James Vega wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar
wrote:
I think what would normally happen is to merge the
development branch
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
Actually, having multiple heads in the same branch may be considered
as not a problem. When we have local changes, after pulling from the
official repository, in order to merge the new official
On Saturday 21 August 2010 15:52:09 Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
Actually, having multiple heads in the same branch may be
considered as not a problem. When we have local changes,
after pulling from
On 22/08/10 00:30, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
Actually, having multiple heads in the same branch may be
considered as not a problem. When we have local
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think what would normally happen is to merge the development branch
back into the default branch. But just like the problems you have now,
I suspect that migth not work very well.
This would have worked just fine (as I had
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, James Vega wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think what would normally happen is to merge the development branch
back into the default branch. But just like the problems you have now,
I suspect that migth not work very
On Aug 17, 4:56 pm, Matt Wozniski m...@drexel.edu wrote:
Most users don't get their vim from source control at all - they get
it from binaries or source provided by their distro.
Developers would want to get the bleeding edge version, and we can
assume the can follow the instructions to
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is
named 'vim72' with the 'hg branch vim72' command (both followed by
On 17 August 2010 13:11, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is
named 'vim72' with
Björn Winckler wrote:
On 17 August 2010 13:11, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default'
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I for one would be very happy if the next version (vim74?) used this
scheme (i.e. where all new work happens on the default branch).
In my opinion the default branch should contain the stable version.
Most users
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is
named 'vim72' with the 'hg branch vim72' command (both followed by
BTW the Graph log extension is easy to setup and very handy to follow
branches in a mercurial repository and to see where is the parent of
the working directory (indicated by '@' in the graph)
See http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GraphlogExtension
Xavier
--
You received this message from the
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is
named 'vim72' with the 'hg branch vim72' command (both followed by
commit).
...
Now that I'm ready to make vim73
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
...
When 7.3 is released it will become the default branch. =A0How this is
done I don't know. ...
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default'
On 15/08/10 22:57, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 15/08/10 22:19, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
...
When 7.3 is released it will become the default branch. =A0How this is
done I don't know. ...
The 'vim73' branch can be
Björn Winckler wrote:
I was wondering what the plans for the Mercurial branches are once 7.3
is finished. Will vim73 be merged into default at some point, or
will there be one giant vim73 patch applied to default (making all
changesets in the vim73 branch into a patch) and vim73 will be
On 23 May 2010 12:38, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I was wondering what the plans for the Mercurial branches are once 7.3
is finished. Will vim73 be merged into default at some point, or
will there be one giant vim73 patch applied to default (making all
changesets in the
On 23/05/10 15:30, björn wrote:
On 23 May 2010 12:38, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I was wondering what the plans for the Mercurial branches are once 7.3
is finished. Will vim73 be merged into default at some point, or
will there be one giant vim73 patch applied to default
Björn Winckler wrote:
On 23 May 2010 12:38, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I was wondering what the plans for the Mercurial branches are once 7.3
is finished. Will vim73 be merged into default at some point, or
will there be one giant vim73 patch applied to default
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:38:10PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I was wondering what the plans for the Mercurial branches are once 7.3
is finished. Will vim73 be merged into default at some point, or
will there be one giant vim73 patch applied to default (making
On 2010-05-23, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I was wondering what the plans for the Mercurial branches are once 7.3
is finished. Will vim73 be merged into default at some point, or
will there be one giant vim73 patch applied to default (making all
changesets in the vim73
25 matches
Mail list logo
