On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:18:21PM -0400, David Higgs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:03:39AM +, Dave Hart wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 01:49 UTC, Michael W. Bombardieri
> >> wrote:
> >> > Sorry, my fault. The inten
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:03:39AM +, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 01:49 UTC, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> > Sorry, my fault. The intent was bitwise-and not bitwise-or.
> > Third version of the diff follows.
> > In regards to hand optimisations, we could be even worse
> > and d
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 01:49 UTC, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> Sorry, my fault. The intent was bitwise-and not bitwise-or.
> Third version of the diff follows.
> In regards to hand optimisations, we could be even worse
> and do something like add rn_id values, subtract rn_len, check
> if zero.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:42:45AM +, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 01:41 UTC, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:04:31AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >> I had trouble finding a decent file where there was a difference,
> >> thanks. ?I guess we need an ugli
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 01:41 UTC, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:04:31AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> I had trouble finding a decent file where there was a difference,
>> thanks. I guess we need an uglier patch to only skip magic if the
>> version is 1.1.1?
>
> Yeah, I
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:04:31AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:17, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote:
> > Your patch breaks this compatibility for every branch except the initial
> > one. GNU CVS is not consistent about its behavior in many ways.
> >
> >> Ha! This is the same bug
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:17, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote:
> Your patch breaks this compatibility for every branch except the initial
> one. GNU CVS is not consistent about its behavior in many ways.
>
>> Ha! This is the same bug I was looking into last week. I wasn't sure in
>> what circumstances
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 09:03:05PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Comparing "cvs log" output between GNU CVS 1.11.1p1 and OpenCVS...
>
> > - mwb: 1.1.1
> > + mwb: 1.1.0.1
>
> > OpenCVS mangles the revision number.
>
> > So it looks like branch numbers that we read in don't need to
> >
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 08:28, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> Hi tech,
>
> I noticed this OpenCVS bug a couple of months ago but I've
> only just written this report.
>
> Comparing "cvs log" output between GNU CVS 1.11.1p1 and OpenCVS...
> - mwb: 1.1.1
> + mwb: 1.1.0.1
> OpenCVS ma
Hi tech,
I noticed this OpenCVS bug a couple of months ago but I've
only just written this report.
Comparing "cvs log" output between GNU CVS 1.11.1p1 and OpenCVS...
$ diff -U 6 log_c.h_cvs log_c.h_ocvs
--- log_c.h_cvs Sun Jul 1 07:08:57 2012
+++ log_c.h_ocvsSun Jul 1 07:09:10 2012
@@
10 matches
Mail list logo