On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> for now the new tag and fallback to --short-log fixes all
>>> the immediate problems I was having (except the reliance on gnu
Hi Jim,
On Oct 30, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> for now the new tag and fallback to --short-log fixes all
>> the immediate problems I was having (except the reliance on gnupg-1.4
>> gpgv).
>
> You say that as if there were a
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> for now the new tag and fallback to --short-log fixes all
> the immediate problems I was having (except the reliance on gnupg-1.4
> gpgv).
You say that as if there were a problem with the maint.mk rule.
The rule relies on the existence of
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> However, isn't this based on the premise that shallow clones are
>> somehow useful?
>
> Sure. Why copy 8000 changesets when you know for sure that you only
> care about the last 100 or s
Hi Jim,
On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> However, isn't this based on the premise that shallow clones are
> somehow useful?
Sure. Why copy 8000 changesets when you know for sure that you only
care about the last 100 or so at the most?
> Did you try the recommended procedure
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I have just pushed a signed v0.1 tag. It holds no particular meaning.
>>
>> I find that smaller commit-count numbers are more reader-friendly
>> than the 8000+ numbers we ha
Hi Jim,
On Oct 29, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I have just pushed a signed v0.1 tag. It holds no particular meaning.
>
> I find that smaller commit-count numbers are more reader-friendly
> than the 8000+ numbers we had reached relative to the v0.0 patch.
>
> Thus, for the next 999
I have just pushed a signed v0.1 tag. It holds no particular meaning.
I find that smaller commit-count numbers are more reader-friendly
than the 8000+ numbers we had reached relative to the v0.0 patch.
Thus, for the next 999 commits, git describe will print something like this:
v0.1-NNN-g
