"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
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.
I find your attitude disgusting.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@
18 matches
Mail list logo
