"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>You can see that I removed it by the fact that it isn't there
>>anymore. If I hadn't decided to remove it, it would be back
>>by now, even though you just removed it by yourself, and you
>>would get a warning not to
>You can see that I removed it by the fact that it isn't there
>anymore. If I hadn't decided to remove it, it would be back
>by now, even though you just removed it by yourself, and you
>would get a warning not to make changes to the CVS tree
>without prior conse
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You can see that I removed it by the fact that it isn't there
>anymore. If I hadn't decided to remove it, it would be back by
>now, even though you just removed it by yourself, and you would get
>a warning not to make changes to the
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You said to me that you hadn't committed anything; so what
>revisions have been tagged?
>
> Marcus tagged code that hadn't changed, so that he could `roll back'
> things if I commited anything. If I was to go forth with say
> rewamping IPC
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know about System III, but BSD was a _fork_ of UNIX, it wasn't
> developed as part of the `offical' UNIX system. You didn't have 2
> different UNIX systems, one different from the other using differnet
> API's from Bell labs now did yah? :
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:54:52 +0100,
Marco Gerards wrote:
>
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The active translator problem seems serious to me. Without any
> > guarantee about the implementation of a service, you can not know what
> > it does. This means that you must be prep
You can see that I removed it by the fact that it isn't there
anymore. If I hadn't decided to remove it, it would be back by
now, even though you just removed it by yourself, and you would get
a warning not to make changes to the CVS tree without prior
consent.
And I would remove i
At Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:17:40 +0100,
Alfred M Szmidt wrote:
>
>> Marcus, can you find a name for the tag which is less
>> provocative?
>
>Well, in fact, we can remove it, because the source tree doesn't
>change much these days, and thus using dates to get the right
>version is
It is as if you are not listening still.
The same can be said about you.
Unix 32V (the Vax port of V7) was certainly Unix. There were two
successor projects: BSD and System III.
I don't know about System III, but BSD was a _fork_ of UNIX, it wasn't
developed as part of the `offical' UN
You said to me that you hadn't committed anything; so what
revisions have been tagged?
Marcus tagged code that hadn't changed, so that he could `roll back'
things if I commited anything. If I was to go forth with say
rewamping IPC performance or something, then a tag might be useful,
but fo
> Marcus, can you find a name for the tag which is less
> provocative?
Well, in fact, we can remove it, because the source tree doesn't
change much these days, and thus using dates to get the right
version is feasible. So, I removed it now.
No you didn't, I removed it.
_
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:58:40 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
> > idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no business
> > calling what I am doing illegal, by f
12 matches
Mail list logo
