On 01/07/13 03:30, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 29.06.2013 11:11, schrieb Chris Packham:
>> On 28/06/13 22:42, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
>>> technically it looks fine to me (except for the lack of tests) but I'm
>>> not sure I follow the use case.
>>>
>>> In your case, you want to run a script to deter
Am 29.06.2013 11:11, schrieb Chris Packham:
> On 28/06/13 22:42, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
>> technically it looks fine to me (except for the lack of tests) but I'm
>> not sure I follow the use case.
>>
>> In your case, you want to run a script to determinate if that certain
>> submodule should use
On 28/06/13 22:42, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:53:10PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
>> This allows the user some finer grained control over how the update is
>> done. The primary motivation for this was interoperability with stgit
>> however being able to intercep
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:53:10PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
> This allows the user some finer grained control over how the update is
> done. The primary motivation for this was interoperability with stgit
> however being able to intercept the submodule update process may prove
> useful for
Am 28.06.2013 11:53, schrieb Chris Packham:
> This allows the user some finer grained control over how the update is
> done. The primary motivation for this was interoperability with stgit
> however being able to intercept the submodule update process may prove
> useful for integrating or extending
This allows the user some finer grained control over how the update is
done. The primary motivation for this was interoperability with stgit
however being able to intercept the submodule update process may prove
useful for integrating or extending other tools.
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham
--
Hi,
6 matches
Mail list logo