On Friday, April 25, 2008, at 08:11AM, "Adrian Buehlmann" wrote:
>On 25.04.2008 13:56, TK Soh wrote:
...(Registry editing elided)...
>> This sort of back-door hack is not recommended. No one can be sure
>> what damage it can do down the road.
>
>This is plain FUD.
>
>> Since the worm is already out of the can, if you must, then please
>> understand that it will have to be done at your own risk.
>
>This is neither a worm nor risky at all.
>
>Technical details can be found here:
>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb776858.aspx
>
>But using TorrtoiseHG or Mercurial is indeed at your own risk,
>as the license clearly states that.
So you have tested 0.3 and 0.4rc1 to make sure that after your
anti-FUD registry hackery their uninstallers work properly?
It would have been good to say if you tested that or not...
(And no, I have no intention of testing that myself, I am
interested in making sure it works out-of-the-box with
controls now available in 0.4rc1, since I do not want to
have to "sell" registry hacking to my team along with
Mercurial and TortoiseHG...
--Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
