On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Ramsay Jones <ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>> that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
>>>> merge resolution, made me think of Duy's split index work.
>>> Yes, there is a deliberately dropped hunk from dt/cache-tree-repair
>>> in that merge, because the topic relied on being able to say "here
>>> is the file descriptor, write the index to it", which no longer is
>>> available with the split-index topic.
>> Ah, OK. Sounds like everything is under control then.
> Wasn't, but now I think it is ;-)
> David, could you please double check the conflict resolution at
> 882426ea (Merge branch 'dt/cache-tree-repair' into jch, 2014-07-14),
> at about the middle between master..pu?  By eyeballing
>     git diff 882426ea^ 882426ea
> we should see what your series would have done if it were based on
> top of the nd/split-index topic.  The most iffy is the first hunk of
> change to builtin/commit.c, which is more or less my rewrite of what
> you did on top of 'master'.

It makes me wonder if a cleaner way of rebuilding cache-treei in this
case is from git-add--interactive.perl, or by simply spawn "git
update-index --rebuild-cache-tree" after running
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

Reply via email to