Max Nanasy max.nanasy at gmail.com writes:
Tested against v1.7.12.4
Confirmed in 1.8.5.2
--
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
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:13:03PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
Before cdab485 (upload-pack: delegate rev walking in shallow fetch to
pack-objects - 2013-08-16) upload-pack does not write to the source
repository. cdab485 starts to write $GIT_DIR/shallow_XX if it's a
shallow fetch,
From: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@dwim.me
When a remote has multiple fetch refspecs and these overlap in the
target namespace, fetch may prune a remote-tracking branch which still
exists in the remote. The test uses a popular form of this, by putting
pull requests as stored in a popular hosting
From: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@dwim.me
We need to consider that a remote-tracking branch may match more than
one rhs of a fetch refspec. In such a case, it is not enough to stop at
the first match but look at all of the matches in order to determine
whether a head is stale.
To this goal,
Before writing the shallow file, we stat() the existing file
to make sure it has not been updated since our operation
began. However, we do not do so under a lock, so there is a
possible race:
1. Process A takes the lock.
2. Process B calls check_shallow_file_for_update and finds
no
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:10:12AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
I also notice that check_shallow_file_for_update returns early if
!is_shallow. Is that safe? Is it possible for another process to have
made us shallow since the program began? In that case, we would have to
stat() the file always,
We already replace old SHA with the clipboard content for the mouse
paste event. It seems reasonable to do the same when pasting from
keyboard.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Bobyr ilya.bo...@gmail.com
---
gitk-git/gitk |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
This is not introduced by your patch, but I notice that we do not seem
to do anything with the tempfiles when the program dies prematurely.
We've started collecting stale shallow_XX files in our server repos.
For the writable
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:10:12AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
I also notice that check_shallow_file_for_update returns early if
!is_shallow. Is that safe? Is it possible for another process to have
made us shallow since the program
On 02/27/2014 10:00 AM, Carlos Martín Nieto wrote:
From: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@dwim.me
We need to consider that a remote-tracking branch may match more than
one rhs of a fetch refspec. In such a case, it is not enough to stop at
the first match but look at all of the matches in order to
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:23:35 -0600
Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Oddly I'm not able to find any instructions on how to build Git for
Windows. I've done a clone of the repository here:
https://github.com/msysgit/git
I did attempt to try doing it myself. I installed 'make'
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:18:58PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:10:12AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
I also notice that check_shallow_file_for_update returns early if
!is_shallow. Is that safe? Is it
On 02/26/2014 09:28 AM, Jacopo Notarstefano wrote:
my name is Jacopo, a student developer from Italy, and I'm interested
in applying to this years' Google Summer of Code. I set my eyes on the
project called git-bisect improvements, in particular the subtask
about swapping the good and bad
Matthieu Moy wrote in message vpqzjlf5q2z@anie.imag.fr:
Maybe status should display a stash count if that count is 0, as
this is part of the state of the repo.
Maybe it would help some users, but not me for example. My main use of
git stash is a safe replacement for git reset --hard:
Change install_branch_config() function to use skip_prefix()
for getting short name of remote branch.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru
---
branch.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
index 723a36b..310749b
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:11:41PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
We only update shallow file in these cases: clone --depth, fetch
--update-shallow, fetch --depth, and push when receive.shallowupdate
is set. All of them may end up not updating shallow file though.
OK, that last sentence is what I
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:30:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
pack-kept-objects then?
Hmm. That does address my point above, but somehow the word kept feels
awkward to me. I'm ambivalent between the two.
That word does make my backside somewhat itchy ;-)
Would it help to take a
On 02/26/2014 05:46 PM, Faiz Kothari wrote:
I am Faiz Kothari, I am a GSoC aspirant and want to contribute to git.
I am submitting the patch in reponse to Microproject 1,
rewrite git-compat-util.h:skip_prefix() as a loop.
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
The subject of your
Thanks for the reply,
I was unable to get git send-email working. Now its working, I'll
resend the patch.
I ran all the tests, they are working properly.
About the comment, I meant, there is a similar function
strbuf.c:starts_with() which does the exact same job, but it returns 0
or 1.
I just
Dmitry,
Thanks for your patch. Please see my comments below.
On 02/27/2014 12:13 PM, Dmitry S. Dolzhenko wrote:
Change install_branch_config() function to use skip_prefix()
for getting short name of remote branch.
English tweak suggestion:
Change THE install_branch_config() function to use
From: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari django@dj-pc.(none)
---
git-compat-util.h |7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
index cbd86c3..bb2582a 100644
--- a/git-compat-util.h
+++
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Dmitry,
Thanks for your patch. Please see my comments below.
On 02/27/2014 12:13 PM, Dmitry S. Dolzhenko wrote:
Change install_branch_config() function to use skip_prefix()
for getting short name of remote branch.
English tweak suggestion:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
git-compat-util.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
index cbd86c3..4daa6cf 100644
--- a/git-compat-util.h
+++ b/git-compat-util.h
@@ -357,8 +357,8 @@ extern int
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
branch.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
index 723a36b..2fe9c05 100644
--- a/branch.c
+++ b/branch.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int should_setup_rebase(const char *origin)
void
- Original Message -
I don't understand the benefit of adding a new command mark rather
than continuing to use good, bad, plus new commands unfixed and
fixed. Does this solve any problems?
I think it could be interesting to allow arbitrary words here. For example, I
recently walked
--sort=version:refname (or --sort=v:refname for short) sorts tags as
if they are versions. --sort=-refname reverses the order (with or
without :version).
versioncmp() is copied from string/strverscmp.c in glibc commit
ee9247c38a8def24a59eb5cfb7196a98bef8cfdc, reformatted to Git coding
style. The
I find myself often do git rebase -i xxx and replace one pick line
with edit to amend just one commit when I see something I don't like
in that commit. This happens often while cleaning up a series. This
automates the replace step so it sends me straight to that commit.
commit --fixup then rebase
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:56:52PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
--sort=version:refname (or --sort=v:refname for short) sorts tags as
if they are versions. --sort=-refname reverses the order (with or
without :version).
versioncmp() is copied from string/strverscmp.c in glibc commit
Michael,
Thank you for your remarks.
If you look at what skip_prefix() and starts_with() do, I think you will
find that you are doing too much work here.
How about this one?
const char *shortname = skip_prefix(remote, refs/heads/);
int remote_is_branch = shortname != NULL;
--
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Stephen Leake stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org writes:
One _could_ argue that stashed changes are what could be reflected
to the working tree and form the source of the latter, but my gut
feeling is that it is a rather weak argument. At that point you
Simon Ruderich si...@ruderich.org writes:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:21:40PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
One easy thing to do OTOH would be to show a hint at the end of git
stash pop's output, like
I think that's a good idea. It makes it obvious that Git has kept
the stash and that the user
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
You had mentioned earlier tweaking the version comparison to handle
things like -rc better. I think that can come on top of this initial
patch, but we should probably figure out the final sort order before
including this in a
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes:
Omar Othman omar.oth...@booking.com writes:
Though I don't know why you think this is important:
Now, the real question is: when would Git stop showing this advice. I
don't see a real way to answer this, and I'd rather avoid doing just a
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
I find myself often do git rebase -i xxx and replace one pick line
with edit to amend just one commit when I see something I don't like
in that commit. This happens often while cleaning up a series. This
automates the replace step so it sends me
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bulk-checkin.c | 10 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..8c47d71 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ static struct
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bulk-checkin.c | 10 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..e3c7fb2 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ static struct
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jacopo Notarstefano
jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey everyone,
my name is Jacopo, a student developer from Italy, and I'm interested
in applying to this years' Google Summer of Code. I set my eyes on the
project called git-bisect improvements, in
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bundle.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index e99065c..7809fbb 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ static void add_to_ref_list(const unsigned char *sha1, const
char
Change install_branch_config() to use skip_prefix()
for getting the short name of the remote branch.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru
---
branch.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
index 723a36b..9382e02
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bundle.c |6 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index 7809fbb..1a7b7eb 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -14,11 +14,7 @@ static const char bundle_signature[] = # v2 git bundle\n;
I'm having a long think (sickness RR) about the possible options for a
narrow clone implementation.
Is there currently any way in the code base that a complete
sub-directory can be marked as 'missing' as could be the case for a
narrow clone? The assume-unchanged/skip-worktree are close but only
From: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bundle.c |6 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index 7809fbb..1a7b7eb 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -14,11 +14,7 @@ static const char
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com
---
It is a good thing to do to read config from the real repository we
are
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Of all of them, I think --pack-kept-objects is probably the best. And I
think we are hitting diminishing returns in thinking too much more on
the name. :)
True enough.
I wonder if it makes sense to link it with pack.writebitmaps more
tightly, without even
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
possible with an edit and another git command, but the convenience may
be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
particularly interesting
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
From: Scott J. Goldman scot...@github.com
In commit ee27ca4, we started restricting remote git-archive
invocations to only accessing reachable commits. This
matches what upload-pack allows, but does restrict some
useful cases (e.g., HEAD:foo). We loosened
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
---
bulk-checkin.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..feeff9f 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static struct
Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru writes:
Refactor binary search in commit_graft_pos function: use
generic sha1_pos function.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru
---
Looks trivially correct; thanks.
Looking at this patch makes me wonder why we have
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Sounds good. I suggest we make your blob a paragraph before the list of
bullet points rather than part of the list. Please suggest some TBD*
then I'll add it to the text. Would we also fill in X with the name
of the actual student involved in
Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com writes:
From: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
Notice that this matches From: in your e-mail message, which means
it is unnecessary. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari django@dj-pc.(none)
And make sure this matches how you call yourself above.
---
Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
git-compat-util.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
index cbd86c3..4daa6cf 100644
--- a/git-compat-util.h
+++
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:21 +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 02/27/2014 10:00 AM, Carlos Martín Nieto wrote:
From: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@dwim.me
We need to consider that a remote-tracking branch may match more than
one rhs of a fetch refspec. In such a case, it is not enough to stop
Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bulk-checkin.c | 10 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..8c47d71 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c
@@
Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru writes:
Change install_branch_config() to use skip_prefix()
for getting the short name of the remote branch.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru
---
branch.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
The subject reads:
Subject: [PATCH] GSoC2014 microprojects #6 Change bundle.c:add_to_ref_list()
to use ALLOC_GROW()
I do not think we want to see the leading part of it in our git
shortlog output.
Lee Hopkins leer...@gmail.com writes:
Last week I ran across a potential bug with branch names on case
insensitive file systems, the complete scenario can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/msysgit/ugKL-sVMiqI
The tldr is because refs are stored as plain text files
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Carlos Martín Nieto c...@elego.de wrote:
Subject: fetch: add a failing test for prunning with overlapping refspecs
s/prunning/pruning/
Signed-off-by: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@elego.de
---
diff --git a/t/t5510-fetch.sh b/t/t5510-fetch.sh
index
Carlos Martín Nieto c...@elego.de writes:
From: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@dwim.me
We need to consider that a remote-tracking branch may match more than
one rhs of a fetch refspec.
Hmph, do we *need* to, really?
Do you mean fetching one ref on the remote side and storing that in
multiple
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Carlos Martín Nieto c...@elego.de wrote:
Subject: fetch: add a failing test for prunning with overlapping refspecs
s/prunning/pruning/
Signed-off-by: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@elego.de
---
diff --git a/t/t5510-fetch.sh b/t/t5510-fetch.sh
index
On 02/27/2014 08:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Sounds good. I suggest we make your blob a paragraph before the list of
bullet points rather than part of the list. Please suggest some TBD*
then I'll add it to the text. Would we also fill in X
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
The repo setup procedure is updated to detect $GIT_DIR/commondir and
set $GIT_COMMON_DIR properly.
The core.worktree is ignored when $GIT_DIR/commondir presents. This is
because commondir repos are intended for separate/linked checkouts
and
On 2014-02-27 20.50, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Lee Hopkins leer...@gmail.com writes:
Last week I ran across a potential bug with branch names on case
insensitive file systems, the complete scenario can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/msysgit/ugKL-sVMiqI
The tldr is
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
On 02/27/2014 08:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Sounds good. I suggest we make your blob a paragraph before the list of
bullet points rather than part of the list. Please suggest some TBD*
then I'll
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
git-compat-util.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
index cbd86c3..4daa6cf 100644
Perhaps git-{branch,tag}.txt and possibly gitrepository-layout.txt
in Documentation/ may need a new *Note* section to warn against
this.
A little more documentation never hurt anyone :).
Or we can possibly trigger this function at the the of
checkout -b or fetch commands ?
Only when
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Carlos Martín Nieto c...@elego.de writes:
From: Carlos Martín Nieto c...@dwim.me
We need to consider that a remote-tracking branch may match more than
one rhs of a fetch refspec.
Hmph, do we *need* to, really?
Do you mean fetching one ref on the
Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@gmail.com
---
attr.c | 7 +--
builtin/pack-objects.c | 7 +--
bundle.c | 6 +-
cache-tree.c | 6 +-
commit.c | 8 ++--
diff.c | 12 ++--
On 02/27/2014 09:37 PM, Lee Hopkins wrote:
Perhaps git-{branch,tag}.txt and possibly gitrepository-layout.txt
in Documentation/ may need a new *Note* section to warn against
this.
A little more documentation never hurt anyone :).
Or we can possibly trigger this function at the the of
Am 25.02.2014 22:12, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de writes:
+test_expect_success PERL 'difftool properly honours gitlink and
core.worktree' '
+ git submodule add ./. submod/ule
+ (
+ cd submod/ule
+ git difftool --tool=echo --dir-diff
Students,
Please don't solve more than one microproject. Since the coding part is
such a small part of a microproject, doing many is not much more
impressive than doing just one. And it takes quite a while to come up
with ideas for microprojects! (I can already see that we are running
out and
On 02/27/2014 03:20 PM, Sun He wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bulk-checkin.c | 10 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..e3c7fb2 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++ b/bulk-checkin.c
On 02/27/2014 03:58 PM, Sun He wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bundle.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index e99065c..7809fbb 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ static void
On 02/27/2014 05:18 PM, Sun He wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
bundle.c |6 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index 7809fbb..1a7b7eb 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -14,11 +14,7 @@ static const
Commit 322bb6e12f (add update 'none' flag to disable update of submodule
by default) added the '--checkout' option to git submodule update but
forgot to explicitly document it in the synopsis and the man page (It is
only mentioned implicitly in the man page).
Document this option in synopsis and
Dmitry,
That's cool; I never imagined there would be so many sites that could be
cleaned up in this way.
In my opinion, it would be preferable for this patch to be broken into
multiple commits, one for each site (or each file, if a file has
multiple sites that are logically related). That would
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Sun He sunheeh...@gmail.com
---
git-compat-util.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h
On 02/27/2014 08:02 PM, Faiz Kothari wrote:
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
---
bulk-checkin.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
index 118c625..feeff9f 100644
--- a/bulk-checkin.c
+++
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru writes:
Change install_branch_config() to use skip_prefix()
for getting the short name of the remote branch.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru
---
branch.c | 4 ++--
1
Am 27.02.2014 21:32, schrieb Torsten Bögershausen:
On 2014-02-27 20.50, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Lee Hopkins leer...@gmail.com writes:
Last week I ran across a potential bug with branch names on case
insensitive file systems, the complete scenario can be found here:
Hi,
Thanks for the remarks.
I'll stick to this micro project and follow the guidelines.
Yes, the strbuf API is perfectly OK. I was not getting to work it
properly, so I used malloc() / free() instead. My bad.
I'll resubmit the patch.
Thanks.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Michael Haggerty
Dmitry S. Dolzhenko dmitrys.dolzhe...@yandex.ru writes:
diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
index b35b633..72f6e2a 100644
--- a/dir.c
+++ b/dir.c
@@ -1329,13 +1329,10 @@ static struct path_simplify *create_simplify(const
char **pathspec)
for (nr = 0 ; ; nr++) {
const char
On 27 February 2014 06:47, Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think the most important thing right now is first to gather as
much information as you can from the previous discussions on this
topic on this mainling list.
Perhaps you should also gather information on how
Thomas Rast t...@thomasrast.ch writes:
The directory hash (for fast checks if the index already has a
directory) was only used in ignore_case mode and so depended on that
flag.
Make it generally available on request.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast t...@thomasrast.ch
---
I somehow had an
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org wrote:
Have there been previous attempts to look at marking sub-dirs as
--skip-worktree, or some other sentinel value for the missing tree?
I dealt with this by creating partial index, that only contains
entries for interested
If I understand the issue correctly, the problem is that packed-refs are
always case-sensitive, even if core.ignorecase=true.
OTOH, checking / updating _unpacked_ refs on a case-insensitive file system
is naturally case-insensitive.
So wouldn't it be a better workaround to disallow packed
From: Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org
wrote:
Have there been previous attempts to look at marking sub-dirs as
--skip-worktree, or some other sentinel value for the missing tree?
I dealt with this by creating partial index, that
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
---
Compiles without errors.
Fails in test t/t1050-large.sh ,fails 12/15 tests. Dumps memory map and
backtrace.
Somewhere its not able to free(): invalid pointer.
Please somone pointout where I am doing it wrong.
Help is really appreciated.
Thanks.
Kindly Find Details In Attach File and Reply via Email:rbi.de...@careceo.com
RBI 14.docx
Description: Binary data
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes:
li...@haller-berlin.de (Stefan Haller) writes:
Your intention was clearly to drop the stash, it just wasn't dropped
because of the conflict. Dropping it automatically once the conflict
is resolved would be nice.
Your intention when you ran
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
... So resolve the conflicts is assuming the intention of
the user who issued pop too much (let alone manually---it does
not matter how the user resolves conflicts---the only thing we want
to say is Git did all it would and no further automated help
From: modocache modoca...@gmail.com
No test asserts that git branch -u refs/heads/my-branch my-branch
emits a warning. Add a test that does so.
Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com
---
t/t3200-branch.sh | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh
From: modocache modoca...@gmail.com
The install_branch_config function reimplemented the skip_prefix
function inline. Use skip_prefix function instead for brevity.
Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com
Reported-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
branch.c | 18
Stephan:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Stephen Leake
stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org wrote:
You might be adding other files for other reasons. But if you add a file
that does resolve a conflict caused by 'git stash pop', it is not
guessing.
Staging a file doesn't tell git that you resolved
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari faiz.of...@gmail.com
---
Compiles without errors.
Fails in test t/t1050-large.sh ,fails 12/15 tests. Dumps memory map and
backtrace.
Somewhere its not able to free(): invalid pointer.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:04:18PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
No test asserts that git branch -u refs/heads/my-branch my-branch
emits a warning. Add a test that does so.
For an operation like git branch foo origin where setting up the
tracking is a side effect, a warning makes sense. But the
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:04:19PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
From: modocache modoca...@gmail.com
Both your emailed patches have this, which is due to your author name
not matching your sending identity. You probably want to set user.name,
or if you already have (which it looks like you might
For an operation like git branch foo origin where setting up the
tracking is a side effect, a warning makes sense. But the sole purpose
of the command above is to set the upstream, and we didn't do it; should
this warning actually be upgraded to an error?
I agree. I originally wrote the test
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:33:45PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
index cbd86c3..4daa6cf 100644
--- a/git-compat-util.h
+++ b/git-compat-util.h
@@ -357,8 +357,8 @@ extern int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char
*suffix);
static
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:17:28PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
For an operation like git branch foo origin where setting up the
tracking is a side effect, a warning makes sense. But the sole purpose
of the command above is to set the upstream, and we didn't do it; should
this warning
No test asserts that git branch -u refs/heads/my-branch my-branch
emits a warning. Add a test that does so.
Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com
---
t/t3200-branch.sh | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh
index
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo