[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch
From: |
Pavel Roskin |
Subject: |
Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:36:21 -0500 (EST) |
> Please, Pavel, make your patch relative to the *latest* patch I sent,
> and accept the previous ones. There is no point in working two
> different branches. Let's go forward, and let's stop this ridiculous
> loss of time on the way we walk. The only thing that matters is
> *where* we go.
>
> I have made steps _forward_, please, step in my tracks.
Ok, I understand that you patch has been applied, at least partly:
2001-01-22 Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
* autoscan.pl: Instead of undefined globals, set them to empty
values.
...
If you want to apply another patch send it to the list or apply it. In
fact, I think that our patches should not conflict.
I want to use "use strict" because it makes hacking the code safer (but
don't trust the compiler too much anyway).
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
- 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/21
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Pavel Roskin, 2001/01/22
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/22
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Pavel Roskin, 2001/01/22
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/22
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/22
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/23
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Russ Allbery, 2001/01/23
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/23
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Pavel Roskin, 2001/01/23
- Re: 17-proto-autoscan-check.patch, Akim Demaille, 2001/01/22