Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
Either return to the function that dot-sourced us or return from
the dot command that dot-sourced us,
but using the original wording
implies to me that the function that dot-sourced us will return as
soon as the dot-sourced script executes the return
On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I think just the s/from/to/ would fix it so it does not give me the
wrong impression, but that doesn't mean that would not confuse
everyone else. ;)
Yeah, let's do that. Thanks for carefully reading them.
I'd think it makes it clearer to
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
On Apr 14, 2014, at 15:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I think we would want to see the actual change formatted this way
(without needing to pass -w to git show), as it will make it
clear that this artificial extra level of define the whole thing
inside a
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
If I'm the only one getting a wrong meaning from the comments, then no
reason to change them.
I agree that the description does not read well with the work-around
already there. I am not sure what would be a
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
By the way, you have this in your log message:
... the git-rebase--*.sh scripts have used a return to return
from the dot command that runs them. While this is allowed by
POSIX,...
Is it this is allowed, or is it this should be the way
On Apr 16, 2014, at 11:11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
If I'm the only one getting a wrong meaning from the comments,
then no
reason to change them.
I agree that the description does not read well with the
On Apr 14, 2014, at 15:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I think we would want to see the actual change formatted this way
(without needing to pass -w to git show), as it will make it
clear that this artificial extra level of define the whole thing
inside a function and then make a single call to it is
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
So I suggest that in the interest of fixing rebase on FreeBSD in an
expeditious fashion, patches 1/3 and 2/3 get picked up (see note
below) now and that the follow-on patch below, after being enhanced to
pass all tests, be submitted separately at
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
So I suggest that in the interest of fixing rebase on FreeBSD in an
expeditious fashion, patches 1/3 and 2/3 get picked up (see note
below) now and that the follow-on patch below, after being
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
For convenience, here are the diffs using -w:
|--- a/git-rebase--am.sh
|+++ b/git-rebase--am.sh
|@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
# Copyright (c) 2010 Junio C Hamano.
#
+git_rebase__am() {
case $action in
continue)
git am --resolved
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
On Apr 11, 2014, at 10:30, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
There are already nested functions with file inclusion between both
levels of nesting in git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-rebase--
merge.sh now, so it's not
On Apr 12, 2014, at 10:07, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
On Apr 11, 2014, at 10:30, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
There are already nested functions with file inclusion between both
levels of nesting in git-rebase--interactive.sh
Since a1549e10, 15d4bf2e and 01a1e646 (first appearing in v1.8.4) the
git-rebase--*.sh scripts have used a return to return from the dot
command that runs them. While this is allowed by POSIX, the FreeBSD
/bin/sh utility behaves poorly under some circumstances when such a
return is executed.
In
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
If script2.sh is changed to this:
# script2.sh fixed
main() {
if [ 5 -gt 3 ]; then
return 5
fi
case bad in *)
echo always shows
esac
echo should not get here
! :
}
On Apr 11, 2014, at 01:48, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
If script2.sh is changed to this:
# script2.sh fixed
main() {
if [ 5 -gt 3 ]; then
return 5
fi
case bad in *)
echo always shows
esac
echo
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
There are already nested functions with file inclusion between both
levels of nesting in git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-rebase--
merge.sh now, so it's not introducing anything new.
OK, so it's less serious than I thought. But still, we're
On Apr 11, 2014, at 10:30, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com writes:
There are already nested functions with file inclusion between both
levels of nesting in git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-rebase--
merge.sh now, so it's not introducing anything new.
OK, so it's less
17 matches
Mail list logo
