Matches for patch, 1691 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Sat Jan 09 13:21:49 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> punkman but it's not necessarily surprising seeing the orphanage burner patch.
Fri Jan 08 21:05:02 UTC 2016 <phf> you've not ~seen~ either. you come across rocky patch in the forest and call it mountain, you call wood chipper pile forest, etc.
Fri Jan 08 00:14:48 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> (it makes no practical difference, the patch is cosmetic and i won't be surprised if it is not considered for inclusion in a release)
Wed Jan 06 15:48:57 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> https://bitbucket.org/sybren/python-rsa/pull-requests/14/security-fix-bb06-attack-in-verify-by/diff << his patch. how would you react to a fella half-heartedly removing a tick from the back of a roadkill deer flattened on a highway ?
Sun Jan 03 16:19:42 UTC 2016 <pete_dushenski> i've read the patch but "boost::int64_t" doesn't mean much to me
Sat Jan 02 15:58:24 UTC 2016 <ascii_rear> just need to patch gcc to stop it from taking local paths shits into the binary
Fri Jan 01 05:54:42 UTC 2016 <assbot> Logged on 05-08-2015 03:41:54; ben_vulpes: has anyone else compiled the maxint patch and received db.log errors of "unable to join environment"?
Thu Dec 31 21:01:56 UTC 2015 <*> ascii_rear still thinks it could be interesting to set up a number of publicly identifiable (version patch) nodez and watch the enemy reaction
Tue Dec 29 18:23:55 UTC 2015 <mircea_popescu> <punkman> patch that wasn't in release will have to be rebased to be in next release <<<< counterintuitively i think this is a Good Thing.
Tue Dec 29 18:08:34 UTC 2015 <ascii_butugychag> at least until we have a smarter patch applicator
Tue Dec 29 18:07:39 UTC 2015 <punkman> patch that wasn't in release will have to be rebased to be in next release
Mon Dec 28 16:42:43 UTC 2015 <mod6> Thanks again for posting your report & corresponding patch. Great work.
Mon Dec 28 03:04:10 UTC 2015 <trinque> could make him eat a genesis v-patch of himself
Mon Dec 28 00:55:45 UTC 2015 <assbot> Logged on 28-12-2015 00:39:31; asciilifeform: in the sense that presently patch Q is said to have patch P as an antecedent if ~any file~ in Q was modified by P
Mon Dec 28 00:45:20 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> ben_vulpes: your question is elementarily answerable by looking at the hashes. each file hash exists solely because it came out of another patch. apply recursively.
Mon Dec 28 00:40:46 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> BUT only because a patch can affect multiple files, can it have multiple ~immediate~ antecedents.
Mon Dec 28 00:40:22 UTC 2015 <ben_vulpes> a patch may have multiple antecedents, correct?
Mon Dec 28 00:39:31 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> in the sense that presently patch Q is said to have patch P as an antecedent if ~any file~ in Q was modified by P
Mon Dec 28 00:22:15 UTC 2015 <ben_vulpes> 1) only press the head patch in question (this is how i wrote my press)
Mon Dec 28 00:20:24 UTC 2015 <punkman> ben_vulpes: if you want to press a minimal version of a patch, you can recursively find all antecedents of a HEAD patch