Re: development speed

2004-04-07 Thread Jeremy Newman
http://www.winehq.org/webalizer/ On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 03:22, Ivan Leo Murray-Smith wrote: > > The website stats are interesting too: > Are these available somewhere? > > Ivan. -- Jeremy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CodeWeavers, Inc.

Re: development speed

2004-04-07 Thread Ivan Leo Murray-Smith
> The website stats are interesting too: Are these available somewhere? Ivan.

Re: development speed

2004-04-06 Thread Brian Vincent
> Check that out - 5mb of patches for the last 3 months running. A meg of > patches just 6 days into the new month already! > > It seems Wine is moving faster than ever before. The website stats are interesting too: Daily Avg | Monthly Totals Hits

Re: development speed

2004-04-06 Thread Mike Hearn
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 16:57, Rein Klazes wrote: > Are you talking about a compressed tar bal perhaps? Yes, sorry, 10mb is for the compressed tarball. The real tree is far larger - I thought that sounded a bit suspicious when I wrote it, but wasn't thinking straight :( > $ find wine -type f|xargs

Re: development speed

2004-04-06 Thread Rein Klazes
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:38:26 +0100, you wrote: > To put things in perspective, the Wine source tree is 10mb - that means in > only 2 months as many lines of patch were generated as exists in Wine > itself! Are you talking about a compressed tar bal perhaps? $ find wine -type f|xargs cat |wc -lc

development speed

2004-04-06 Thread Mike Hearn
Hey guys, http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/ Check that out - 5mb of patches for the last 3 months running. A meg of patches just 6 days into the new month already! It seems Wine is moving faster than ever before. To put things in perspective, the Wine source tree is 10mb - that me