[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs
From: |
Sam Steingold |
Subject: |
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:12:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Monnier wrote:
| The "stay-local" should be the default. It is tremendously
| useful (think of the case where you're not connected to your
| repository). The non-stay-local behavior is the one whose usefulness is
| debatable (after all, most new VCS don't bother offering a clean
| equivalent).
I disagree. I think "stay-local" is useful only when you not connected
to the internet, and this is a very rare condition these days.
in general, the value of stay-local should be detected automatically by
a ping.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIRtsCPp1Qsf2qnMcRAuKEAKClCV6HJQYbH3NiMntGViKBAqiUCQCgg0Ln
4oBWDp8jmFEbkNEXOooQUSA=
=dHMv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, (continued)
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/06
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs,
Sam Steingold <=
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/04