On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 00:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:04 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Think about the actual kernel tree source code, not just the
> > metadata...
>
> Disk is cheap. Waiting for the whole damn thing to rebuild after
> switching branches and back agai
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:04 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Think about the actual kernel tree source code, not just the
> metadata...
Disk is cheap. Waiting for the whole damn thing to rebuild after
switching branches and back again is less so.
Besides, checking it out is optional.
--
dwmw2
-
To
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
It makes diffing between lines of development more difficult, takes up
more overall space, less cache friendly, ...
All of which is much less true if you're sharing object directories or
even using alternates.
Thin
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It makes diffing between lines of development more difficult, takes up
> more overall space, less cache friendly, ...
All of which is much less true if you're sharing object directories or
even using alternates.
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 11:14 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
Some googling seems to show that "git pull" has a bug/feature of
ignoring the branch that one is working in, and pulling "master"
no matter what. I have no clue why; this seems broken to me.
Branches are generally
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 11:14 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> Some googling seems to show that "git pull" has a bug/feature of
> ignoring the branch that one is working in, and pulling "master"
> no matter what. I have no clue why; this seems broken to me.
Branches are generally a PITA -- it's probab
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:01 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > I wish there was a git option to "just make my shit look like the
> > remote, dammit!" The above is the "easiest" way I know how to do that.
>
> git-fetch -f remote:local ?
There's always "git reset --hard "
cheers
--
Michael El
On Wednesday 13 June 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> I wish there was a git option to "just make my shit look like the
> >> remote, dammit!" The above is the "easiest" way I know how to do that.
> >
> > git-fetch -f remote:local ?
>
> If that works... great :) Much bet
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
I wish there was a git option to "just make my shit look like the
remote, dammit!" The above is the "easiest" way I know how to do that.
git-fetch -f remote:local ?
If that works... great :) Much better than what I described.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from
I wish there was a git option to "just make my shit look like the
remote, dammit!" The above is the "easiest" way I know how to do that.
git-fetch -f remote:local ?
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More m
As of this moment there are -no- spidernet patches in netdev. I just
rebased 'upstream', and dropped the existing spidernet patches.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://v
Linas Vepstas wrote:
"git branch" shows that I'm on "upstream". So I performed a "git pull"
(without any additional arguments) assuming that it would sync to your
"upstream" branch. And so my email was based on this.
Some googling seems to show that "git pull" has a bug/feature of
ignoring th
Michael Ellerman wrote:
I was just
keen to see the "major bugfixes" get into 22, rather than waiting
another few months for 23.
Agreed.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:04:18PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>Should I just drop all spidernet patches and start over?
> >
> >No. Apply the series I just sent you, dropping the one called
> >"patch 6/15", the one from Florin Malita, as it appears you'd
> >previously picked this up. The rest
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 21:54 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Linas posted the patches, I responded querying whether the bug fixes
> > should go into 2.6.22, and then you told him "you need to order your bug
> > fixes first in the queue". Which seemed pretty clear to me that y
Michael Ellerman wrote:
Linas posted the patches, I responded querying whether the bug fixes
should go into 2.6.22, and then you told him "you need to order your bug
fixes first in the queue". Which seemed pretty clear to me that you'd
wait for the reordered series.
This was presuming Linas act
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 19:00 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:20:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 20
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:00:17PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:20:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:00:17PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linas Vepstas wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:20:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu,
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:20:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:17 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
The major bug fixes are:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 13:14 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:20:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:17 -0500
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:20:20PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:17 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The major bug fixes are:
22 matches
Mail list logo
