On 20/04/15 16:25, Lex Spoon wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Luke Diamand wrote:
Sorry - could you resubmit your patch (PATCHv4 it will be) with this
change squashed in please? It will make life much easier, especially
for Junio!
The message you just responded is already the squashed
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Luke Diamand writes:
>
>> Sorry - could you resubmit your patch (PATCHv4 it will be) with this
>> change squashed in please? It will make life much easier, especially
>> for Junio!
>
> Thanks for caring, but this seems to be a full patch to replace v3.
>
> It was sent wi
Luke Diamand writes:
> Sorry - could you resubmit your patch (PATCHv4 it will be) with this
> change squashed in please? It will make life much easier, especially
> for Junio!
Thanks for caring, but this seems to be a full patch to replace v3.
It was sent with your Reviewed-by already in, but I
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Luke Diamand wrote:
> Sorry - could you resubmit your patch (PATCHv4 it will be) with this
> change squashed in please? It will make life much easier, especially
> for Junio!
The message you just responded is already the squashed version. It's a
single patch that
Sorry - could you resubmit your patch (PATCHv4 it will be) with this
change squashed in please? It will make life much easier, especially
for Junio!
Thanks!
Luke
On 20 April 2015 at 16:00, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Simply running "p4 changes" on a large branch can
> result in a "too many rows scanned"
Simply running "p4 changes" on a large branch can
result in a "too many rows scanned" error from the
Perforce server. It is better to use a sequence
of smaller calls to "p4 changes", using the "-m"
option to limit the size of each call.
Signed-off-by: Lex Spoon
Reviewed-by: Junio C Hamano
Review
6 matches
Mail list logo
