From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 23.0.50; log-view-current-file error Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:26:10 -0700 Message-ID: <200709061426.l86EQArj013859@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> References: <200709042352.l84NquKN011978@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <200709060529.l865TlwZ001094@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1189088935 6952 80.91.229.12 (6 Sep 2007 14:28:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 06 16:28:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ITILV-0003ah-OD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:28:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITILU-0004zv-3G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:28:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ITILP-0004wb-RT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:28:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ITILP-0004uk-3F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:28:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITILO-0004uN-Qk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:28:30 -0400 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ITILN-0008OE-P7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:28:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l86EQArj013859; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 07:26:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Leo's message of "Thu\, 06 Sep 2007 08\:32\:07 +0100") Original-Lines: 18 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-Detected-Kernel: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:77977 Archived-At: Leo writes: > On 2007-09-06 06:29 +0100, Dan Nicolaescu wrote: > > > DVC is superior in design. > > > > It would be interesting to find out more about that... > > You can find out more at the following email list > dvc-dev@gna.org > > or > > gmane.emacs.dvc.devel Given that you made statements about the DVC design superiority, why don't you present that here instead of having everyone looking for clues on a mailing list? This should help in the future if DVC is proposed for inclusion in emacs.