"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
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
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
"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 force or sudden.
>
>What did Marcus tag?
>
> The GNU Mach
> 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 force or sudden.
What did Marcus tag?
The GNU Mach tree.
Marcus, can you find a name for the tag which is le
"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 force or sudden.
What did Marcus tag?
Marcus, can you find a name for the t
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It isn't acceptable for calling my I was trying to do for a
>> hostile, illegal, and a takover by force. I gave enough of a
>> warning to people, you could have said `no', and I would have
>> held of, that is not force. If this `
> It isn't acceptable for calling my I was trying to do for a
> hostile, illegal, and a takover by force. I gave enough of a
> warning to people, you could have said `no', and I would have
> held of, that is not force. If this `takeover' was done by
> force, then I would have commi
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It isn't acceptable for calling my I was trying to do for a hostile,
> illegal, and a takover by force. I gave enough of a warning to
> people, you could have said `no', and I would have held of, that is
> not force. If this `takeover' was done b
> 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 force or sudden.
This is not acceptible. Your frustration at Marcus is not an
excuse for ordering people arou
"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 force or sudden.
This is not acceptible. Your frustration at Marcus is not
17 matches
Mail list logo
