On CVS references, if you want something that's useful when you need to do something complicated (like branching), look at http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/cvsbook.html. It's not a short reference, but I find it useful when doing something more complicated than checkout/commit. (btw, checking in code is generally as simple as "cvs commit". If it moans that your files aren't up to date, first run "cvs update" and try again. If CVS update prefixes files with "C", there are conflicts marked in the file that you need to resolve before committing.) On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 19:46, Bill Haneman wrote: > Erick: > > There's an O'Reilly pocket CVS reference, it's been all I've ever > needed. 40 or 50 tiny pages, well organized, and even easier/more > explicit than 'man cvs'. > > - Bill > > On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 19:34, Erick Woods wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 18:30, Erick Woods wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > > > > > > yeah, cvs is needed, but it's easy: > > > > > > http://developer.gnome.org/tools/cvs.html > > > > Nice, but inadequate. It shows me how to check stuff out, but I will need > > to know how to commit changes, branch the code and stuff like that, right? > > Remember, I am short on time and don't want to waste a lot of it learning > > new things right now. a list of commands/tutorial for commits, etc. like > > the checkout stuff listed there would be a great addition. > > > > > one of the biggest advantages on having it in GNOME CVS is that you'll > > > get far more translations from the GNOME Translation team. > > > > That would be nice. > > > > > in gnome-network we detect the programs at run-time, at least in some > > > cases, for not having to depend on them. But we still depend on some > > > things, like, iirc, *vncviewer. So it's ok to me if we depend on > > > rdesktop, at least from a packaging point of view. > > > > tsclient detects things at runtime, too. It disables options for clients > > that are unavailable. i have the dep on rdesktop because it was designed > > for that and because it would be foolish to install it and not have at > > least one protocol enabled. > > > > > it looks ok to me as it is. Of course, there are sure things to > > > fix/change, but I dont think a UI restructure is needed at all. > > > > That's good. There have been folks (I won't name them) that have insisted > > on major changes to the UI and some of them have really been abrasive. > > Not cool, but it wasn't you, so I won't say anymore. > > > > > hmm, what were those changes to make it HIG-compliant that you dont want > > > to do? > > > > Most of those changes are complete. The big one that is not is that > > someone insisted that all the little images and banner image at the top be > > removed for HIG compliance. That is pure crap and isn't going to happen. > > One other change that will likely happen before I do another release is to > > scrap the compact/full mode stuff and just use the full mode. The compact > > mode is useless with protocols other than rdp and is slightly incomplete > > and flakey. It would be a lot better for maintainability to scrap the > > compact mode and I plan on doing that. Other than that, the code isn't > > the greatest, but it is pretty clean and stable. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Erick Woods > > erick gnomepro com > > http://www.gnomepro.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnome-hackers mailing list > > gnome-hackers gnome org > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-hackers mailing list > gnome-hackers gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part