Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Move PGP verification out of verify-tag

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 06:26:55PM -0400, santi...@nyu.edu wrote: > From: Santiago Torres > > This is a follow up of [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. patches 1/6, 2/6 and 3/6 > are the same as the corresponding commits in pu. Aside from the minor point I mentioned, and the ones

Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] verify-tag: change variable name for readability

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 06:26:58PM -0400, santi...@nyu.edu wrote: > diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c > index 77f070a..010353c 100644 > --- a/builtin/verify-tag.c > +++ b/builtin/verify-tag.c > @@ -21,20 +21,21 @@ static const char * const verify_tag_usage[] = { > static

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 02:12:30PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > + > + /* > + * If a group can be moved back and forth, see if there is an > + * blank line in the moving space. If there is a blank line, > + * make sure the last blank line is the

Re: [PATCH v2] git-p4: add P4 jobs to git commit message

Jan Durovec writes: > When migrating from Perforce to git the information about P4 jobs > associated with P4 changelists is lost. > > Having these jobs listed on messages of related git commits enables smooth > migration for projects that take advantage of e.g. JIRA

Re: [PATCH 0/7] fix checking out a being-rebased branch

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Another option is leave wt_status_get_state() alone, factor out the >> rebase-detection code and use that for worktree/checkout. We save a >> few syscalls this way too. >> >> Comments? >> >> [01/07] path.c: add

Re: [PATCH 0/2] WAS: [PATCH] mv: allow moving nested submodules

Stefan Beller writes: > A single patch evolves into a series. Power of code inspection to see bugs that are not reported, perhaps ;-)? I wonder if we can come up with test cases to cover these potential issues that are addressed in [1/2]? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from

Re: [PATCH 0/2 v4] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >>> OK, so perhaps either of you two can do a final version people can >>> start having fun with? >> >> Here we go. I squashed in your patch, although with a minor change: >>

[PATCH 2/2] mv: allow moving nested submodules

When directories are moved using `git mv` all files in the directory have been just moved, but no further action was taken on them. This was done by assigning the mode = WORKING_DIRECTORY to the files inside a moved directory. submodules however need to update their link to the git directory as

[PATCH 1/2] mv submodule: respect ignore_errors for errors in submodule code

The error handling via passing around a strbuf is well exercised in the refs code, so apply that pattern here, too. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller --- builtin/mv.c | 15 --- submodule.c | 33 - submodule.h | 6 -- 3 files

[PATCH 0/2] WAS: [PATCH] mv: allow moving nested submodules

A single patch evolves into a series. The second patch is essentially a resend with Junios suggestion squashed[1]. That patch alone doesn't quite fix it yet, as we need to make sure the submodule code respects the ignore_errors flag as instructed by the user. Patch 1 libifies the used functions

What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2016, #05; Mon, 18)

Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them. The 'master' branch now has the

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

Jacob Keller writes: > Thanks Stephan and Junio, this looks pretty good. I think before it's > merged we'd probably want to implement some sort of attributes which > allows per-path configuration, incase it needs to be configured at > all. My take on it is that we'd want

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > In order to produce the smallest possible diff and combine several diff > hunks together, we implement a heuristic from GNU Diff which moves diff > hunks forward as far as possible when we find common context above and >

Re: [PATCH] mv: allow moving nested submodules

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> If ignore-errors is set and rename fails, this would fall through >> and try to touch this codepath... >> >>> if (submodule_gitfile[i]) { >>>

Re: [PATCH 0/2 v4] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

Stefan Beller writes: >> OK, so perhaps either of you two can do a final version people can >> start having fun with? > > Here we go. I squashed in your patch, although with a minor change: > > - if ((flags & XDF_SHORTEST_LINE_HEURISTIC)) { > + if

Re: [PATCH] mv: allow moving nested submodules

Junio C Hamano writes: > If ignore-errors is set and rename fails, this would fall through > and try to touch this codepath... > >> if (submodule_gitfile[i]) { >> if (submodule_gitfile[i] != >> SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR) >>

[PATCH 1/2] xdiff: add recs_match helper function

From: Jacob Keller It is a common pattern in xdl_change_compact to check that hashes and strings match. The resulting code to perform this change causes very long lines and makes it hard to follow the intention. Introduce a helper function recs_match which performs both

[PATCH 2/2] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

In order to produce the smallest possible diff and combine several diff hunks together, we implement a heuristic from GNU Diff which moves diff hunks forward as far as possible when we find common context above and below a diff hunk. This sometimes produces less readable diffs when writing C,

[PATCH 0/2 v4] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

> OK, so perhaps either of you two can do a final version people can > start having fun with? Here we go. I squashed in your patch, although with a minor change: - if ((flags & XDF_SHORTEST_LINE_HEURISTIC)) { + if ((flags & XDF_COMPACTION_HEURISTIC) && blank_lines) {

Re: [PATCH] mv: allow moving nested submodules

Stefan Beller writes: > if (show_only || verbose) > printf(_("Renaming %s to %s\n"), src, dst); > - if (!show_only && mode != INDEX) { > - if (rename(src, dst) < 0 && !ignore_errors) > + if

Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] verify-tag: add sha1 argument to verify_tag()

Eric Sunshine writes: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM, wrote: >> verify-tag: add sha1 argument to verify_tag() > > Mentioned previously[1]: This subject is talking about low level > details of the change rather than giving a high-level overview. A >

Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Move PGP verification out of verify-tag

santi...@nyu.edu writes: >I'm unsure about the 80-column >on 4/6, the ternary operator is rather long. You can do something like this: type = sha1_object_info(sha1, NULL); if (type != OBJ_TAG) return error("%s: cannot verify a non-tag object of type %s.",

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jacob Keller writes: > >> I think we're going to make use of xdl_blankline instead of this or >> our own "is_emptyline" > > OK, so perhaps either of you two can do a final version people can >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Another reroll of sb/submodule-init

Stefan Beller writes: > * squashed the fixes from Johannes Sixt to unbreak Windows tests. > (I had encoding issues; so I manually integrated the changes) > * fixed memleaks > * the base to apply did not change (ee30f17805f51d37 Merge branch > 'sb/submodule-path-misc-bugs'

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic

Jacob Keller writes: > I think we're going to make use of xdl_blankline instead of this or > our own "is_emptyline" OK, so perhaps either of you two can do a final version people can start having fun with? By the way, I really do not want to see something this low-level

Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] transport: add refspec list parameters to functions

David Turner writes: > Add parameters for a list of refspecs to transport_get_remote_refs and > get_refs_list. These parameters are presently unused -- soon, we will > use them to implement fetches which only learn about a subset of refs. > > Signed-off-by: David

Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/6] remote-curl.c: fix variable shadowing

David Turner writes: > The local variable 'options' was shadowing a global of the same name. > > Signed-off-by: David Turner > --- OK. In general, giving a longer and more descriptive name to the global would be a direction to lead to more

Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] http-backend: use argv_array functions

David Turner writes: > Signed-off-by: David Turner > --- OK (it might be easier to read if you used the pushl form for the "fixed initial segment" like these calls, though). > http-backend.c | 12 +++- > 1 file changed, 7

Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Move PGP verification out of verify-tag

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM, wrote: > This is a follow up of [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. patches 1/6, 2/6 and 3/6 > are the same as the corresponding commits in pu. > > v6: > * As Junio suggested, updated 4/6, to include the name argument and the >ternary operator to

Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] tag -v: verfy directly rather than exec-ing verify-tag

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:27 PM, wrote: > tag -v forks into verify-tag, which only calls gpg_verify_tag(). "forks into" sounds odd. > Instead of forking to verify-tag, call gpg_verify_tag directly(). s/ directly()/() directly/ I found the commit message of your previous

Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] verify-tag: add sha1 argument to verify_tag()

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM, wrote: > verify-tag: add sha1 argument to verify_tag() Mentioned previously[1]: This subject is talking about low level details of the change rather than giving a high-level overview. A suggested replacement[1] would be: verify-tag:

Re: [PATCH 0/7] fix checking out a being-rebased branch

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > First cut. I need opinions on 05/07, which converts > wt_status_get_state() to support selecting any worktree. I'm not super > happy with leaving "TODO: not supported yet" comments, even though > strictly speaking this series does not need it.

Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] verify-tag: change variable name for readability

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM, wrote: > The run_gpg_verify() function has two variables, size and len. > > This may come off as confusing when reading the code. Clarify which > one pertains to the length of the tag headers by renaming len to > payload_length. The commit

Re: Binary grep t7008 known breakage vanished on Cygwin

On 18/04/16 16:21, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: > t7008.12 is marked as an expected failure, but building Git on Cygwin > including a `make configure && ./configure` step has the test > unexpectedly passing. Building without the configure step has the test > failing as expected. > > This appears to

[PATCH] mv: allow moving nested submodules

When directories are moved using `git mv` all files in the directory have been just moved, but no further action was taken on them. This was done by assigning the mode = WORKING_DIRECTORY to the files inside a moved directory. submodules however need to update their link to the git directory as

Re: git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges

Junio C Hamano writes: > Andrew Ardill writes: > >> I do think that the --no-commit option should imply --no-ff (as this >> would make the behaviour consistent for end-users). I don't know if >> this is something that would break scripts etc, but if

Re: git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges

Andrew Ardill writes: > Yes, I think the mis-alignment in expectations comes from a > technicality in the description you quote. The fast forward is in some > ways not really counted as a true merge, and no new commits are > created. Looking at 123ee3ca (Add --no-commit

Binary grep t7008 known breakage vanished on Cygwin

t7008.12 is marked as an expected failure, but building Git on Cygwin including a `make configure && ./configure` step has the test unexpectedly passing. Building without the configure step has the test failing as expected. This appears to be behaviour specific to Cygwin; at least I get that

Re: Where can I find the MD5 or SHA1 of git preview client.

From: "Johannes Schindelin" Hi Wu, On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, bin wu wrote: There is still a question.Why not just post the the MD5 and SHA1 on the download page? We do: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/releases Thanks, I couldn't see it for looking (I was

Fwd: BUG: absolute paths on windows

Hello, I've discovered bug in git. I'm used to add files by copying absolute path from my IDE. Now on Windows 10 I discovered bug. Git says: "is outside repository" when I use "git add C:\repo\file.txt". For "git add c:\repo\file.txt" (drive letter is lower-case) it works like it worked before on

Hi git

Greetings git http://yozgatnakliyat.net/standard.php?theres=y1p39sb1ca7safkew madhan...@yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

IMPORTANT MAIL TO YOU

I am Capt. Lawrence Tyman, an officer in US Army,and also a West Point Graduate, serving in the Military with the 82nd Air Borne Division Peace keeping force deployed from Afganistan to Syria. We were moved to Syria from Iraq as the last batch just left,and i really need your help in assisting

Git for Windows Portable

Hi, I have question regarding Git for Windows Portable in version 2.8.1 32bit that can be downloaded from https://git-scm.com/download/win . What is the minimum version of .NET and OS that is necessary to successfully run it? Thank you for your answer. Best Regards Lukáš Rumpala-- To

Re: git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges

On 18 April 2016 at 17:23, Christoph Paulik wrote: > My expectations from what should happen came mainly from the description of > the --no-commit flag in the help: > > With --no-commit perform the merge but pretend the merge failed and do not > autocommit, to give the user a

Re: git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges

My expectations from what should happen came mainly from the description of the --no-commit flag in the help: With --no-commit perform the merge but pretend the merge failed and do not autocommit, to give the user a chance to inspect and further tweak the merge result before committing.

Re: [PATCH] Extend runtime prefix computation

Hi Junio, On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Weiser writes: > > > Make git fully relocatable at runtime extending the runtime prefix > > calculation. Handle absolute and relative paths in argv0. Handle no path > > at all in argv0 in a system-specific

Re: git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges

On 18 April 2016 at 16:26, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > The command only works as expected when also adding the --no-ff flag. > > Then you need to fix your expectations ;-) I *think* the core of this problem is that the intent of the end-user does not align with

Re: git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges

Hi Christoph, On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, Christoph Paulik wrote: > git merge branch --no-commit does commit fast forward merges leaving > users no way to change the merge results. No, this is not a bug. Please note that a fast-forward does not perform a commit at all (and therefore "does commit fast

Re: Where can I find the MD5 or SHA1 of git preview client.

Hi Philip, On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, Philip Oakley wrote: > From: "bin wu" > > There is still a question.Why not just post the the MD5 and SHA1 on > > the download page? > > > I've created a page on the FAQ wiki > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/Release-Hashes The