Jesse Noller writes:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:53, Stephen J. Turnbull
> > wrote:
> >> The point of submodules a la git is subtly different. It is that you
> >> can mix and match *known versions* of the modules. So, eg, in order
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:53, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> The point of submodules a la git is subtly different. It is that you
>> can mix and match *known versions* of the modules. So, eg, in order
>> to work on recent urllib, maybe you
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:53, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The point of submodules a la git is subtly different. It is that you
> can mix and match *known versions* of the modules. So, eg, in order
> to work on recent urllib, maybe you need a recent *but stable* email
> but you don't want any of
Brett Cannon writes:
> Mercurial has subrepo support, but that doesn't justify the need to
> have every module in its own repository so they can be checked out
> individually.
The point of submodules a la git is subtly different. It is that you
can mix and match *known versions* of the module
David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 17:17, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik
wrote:
> I planned to publish this propos
Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2010 22:01, schrieb Jesse Noller:
>>
I am exhausted.
>>> fwiw - there is a/are plan(s) to break out the stdlib from "core" once
>>> the transition is complete, to better allow re-use between the various
>>>
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 17:17, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik wrote:
I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and test
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 17:17, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
>>> with an assumption that Subversion repository will
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
>> with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and
>> up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But r
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 02.07.2010 22:01, schrieb Jesse Noller:
>
>>> I am exhausted.
>>
>> fwiw - there is a/are plan(s) to break out the stdlib from "core" once
>> the transition is complete, to better allow re-use between the various
>> interpreters. I do not th
Am 02.07.2010 22:01, schrieb Jesse Noller:
>> I am exhausted.
>
> fwiw - there is a/are plan(s) to break out the stdlib from "core" once
> the transition is complete, to better allow re-use between the various
> interpreters. I do not think that "lots of small mirrors/repos" for
> each library is
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:25, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
> with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and
> up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But recent threads showed that
> currently there is no tested m
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
> with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and
> up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But recent threads showed that
> currently there is no tested
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
> with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and
> up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But recent threads showed that
> currently there is no tested
I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested
with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and
up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But recent threads showed that
currently there is no tested mechanism to sync Subversion repository
back with Mercurial, so i
15 matches
Mail list logo