Matches for patch, 1691 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Mon Aug 31 18:54:38 UTC 2015 <ascii_field> ^ perhaps i ought to explain. picture a patch mid-flow whose seal is annulled (removed, even if temporarily, from .wot)
Mon Aug 31 18:19:40 UTC 2015 <assbot> Logged on 22-10-2014 18:52:16; mircea_popescu: <asciilifeform> how to do signed commits << the barbarian way. everyone who read a patch file (yes) and is willing to sign under it, signs. this gets posted. whoever wants, can apply the patches to get a merged turdball. << i think this is exactly how it should go.
Mon Aug 31 18:16:08 UTC 2015 <ascii_field> mircea_popescu: my point was precisely that it is a spurious distinction, and that i do not make it in the system; and that anyone who wants to try to be remembered as the first one to pen a particular patch had better deedbot his signature
Mon Aug 31 14:36:31 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> also there is no selectability of wot or patch subsets, other than by specifying --wot customdir or same for patches, containing desired subset
Sat Aug 29 21:10:12 UTC 2015 <punkman> anyone try the final debug_sanity_part1 patch?
Sat Aug 29 19:25:49 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> 'this program may be redistributed provided that 1) this notice and 2) the original copy of $program, with my pgp signature thereof - are included; and any changes you made to $program must be represented in the form of a vdiff patch signed with a pgp key registered in the Web of Trust.'
Tue Aug 25 03:21:52 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> 'We are unable to explain the true nature of these patches in public because they guard against absolutely terrible DoS exploits that can take down ANY Bitcoin node. So instead we called it, "Minor efficiency improvement in block peer request handling." which is somewhat true of the patch.'
Sun Aug 23 04:03:04 UTC 2015 <phf> "Normally this option is unnecessary, since patch can exam- ine the time stamps on the header to determine whether a file should exist after patching."
Sun Aug 23 03:44:05 UTC 2015 <phf> mod6: in fact if you read patch man page, you'll see that us stripping dates basically broke that functionality
Sun Aug 23 03:43:27 UTC 2015 <phf> mod6: try running patch with -E ?
Sat Aug 22 23:49:50 UTC 2015 <mod6> oh this is pretty neat. so I got the mechanics tested & rebased for rel1 -- off of classic patches & genesis.vpatch to be sure. created a "rel1.vpatch" from that. then tested it, worked good on top of extracted genesis.vpatch. then did one of these numbers "cat genesis.vpatch >> rel1-fromair.vpatch ; cat rel1.vpatch >> rel1-fromair.vpatch ; patch -p1 < rel1-fromair.vpatch"
Sat Aug 22 18:33:15 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> 'if tree-walk wedges on account of your patch, blame yourself'
Sat Aug 22 18:27:56 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> mod6: no, understand, such a patch being submitted will wedge the machine.
Sat Aug 22 16:02:31 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> to further work the example, the 'antipatch' is only necessary if ben_vulpes's chain builds on any of asciilifeform's patches which have the unwanted patch as antecedent.
Sat Aug 22 15:48:25 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> with caveat that gnupatch will no longer keep you from applying the same patch twice.
Sat Aug 22 15:45:35 UTC 2015 <trinque> result of patch -p1 < genesis.vpatch is a tree which matches the manifest.
Fri Aug 21 23:06:12 UTC 2015 <mircea_popescu> patch -p1 < genesis.vpatch
Fri Aug 21 22:27:52 UTC 2015 <*> ascii_field glad that mircea_popescu liked the concept, but noticed that he signed the old patch
Fri Aug 21 21:55:49 UTC 2015 <ascii_field> and, for the first time ever in history of versionatrons, you can take a tree of unknown constitution and determine what patch set it corresponds to (if any)
Fri Aug 21 21:51:16 UTC 2015 <ascii_field> mircea_popescu: the actual patch (optional, if the message concerns a patch) - 2nd attach