On Mon, 20 May 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > There's not many details there but I always thought that the
> > "interesting" parts of the GCC history (official branches and trunk)
> > do _not_ contain merge commits so the GCC histor
On Mon, 20 May 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> There's not many details there but I always thought that the
> "interesting" parts of the GCC history (official branches and trunk)
> do _not_ contain merge commits so the GCC history forms a tree
> rather than a DAG. (I'm not sure if there's an easy w
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > There's not many details there but I always thought that the
> > "interesting" parts of the GCC history (official branches and trunk)
> > do _not_ contain merge commits so
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> There's not many details there but I always thought that the
> "interesting" parts of the GCC history (official branches and trunk)
> do _not_ contain merge commits so the GCC history forms a tree
> rather than a DAG. (I'm not sure
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 8:50 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> First, my apologies for not responding five days ago. Joseph's mail
> issued as I was transitioning to a new machine and the day before I
> spent some hours in the ER of my local hospital, and I missed it in
> the confusion.
>
> In case yo
First, my apologies for not responding five days ago. Joseph's mail
issued as I was transitioning to a new machine and the day before I
spent some hours in the ER of my local hospital, and I missed it in
the confusion.
In case you missed it on the main list, git-svn is *not safe* for
histories wit
