[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch.
|
From: |
Miles Bader |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch. |
|
Date: |
Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:17:42 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Unfortunately, the current code requires that only base-0 is a
> continuation.
That is true like 99% of the time though -- as an interim measure, could you
just make it fall back to the `old stupid method' if a non-base-0
continuation is found?
-Miles
--
Run away! Run away!
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Andrew Suffield, 2004/02/20
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Charles Duffy, 2004/02/21
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Robert Anderson, 2004/02/20
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Robert Anderson, 2004/02/20