How timely should the sources in the subversion repo of the 2.6 kernel
be? I see that right now they are almost 2 days behind linux.bkbits.net
thanks
Jani
Jani Monoses wrote:
> How timely should the sources in the subversion repo of the 2.6 kernel
> be? I see that right now they are almost 2 days behind linux.bkbits.net
>
> thanks
> Jani
>
Depends if Larry is in a good mood or not.
Quote from Wade <[email protected]>:
> Jani Monoses wrote:
> > How timely should the sources in the subversion repo of the 2.6 kernel
> > be? I see that right now they are almost 2 days behind linux.bkbits.net
> >
> > thanks
> > Jani
> >
>
> Depends if Larry is in a good mood or not.
Don't post flamebait - Larry posted to the list a few days ago stating
that he is busy with non work things at the moment.
If there is a problem with the Bit Keeper repositories, have you
contacted anyone at Bit Mover, as he suggested?
John.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:49:57PM +0800, Wade wrote:
> Jani Monoses wrote:
> >How timely should the sources in the subversion repo of the 2.6 kernel
> >be? I see that right now they are almost 2 days behind linux.bkbits.net
> >
> >thanks
> >Jani
>
> Depends if Larry is in a good mood or not.
Did you even go to check to see if the CVS tree was up to date?
Of course not. FYI, (a) the trees are updated out of cron and there is
no cron --larry-mode=pissed mode that I have found; (b) I'm off taking
care of my parents and if you think that I give a rats ass about this
sort of thing right now, think again.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm