On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa
raphael.kubo.da.co...@intel.com wrote:
The code handling %(upstream:track) and %(upstream:trackshort) assumed
it always had a valid branch that had been sanitized earlier in
populate_value(), and thus did not check the return value of the
Am 02.01.2015 um 18:03 schrieb Robert Dailey:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a function like so:
void MyClass::SomeFunction(int someParameter)
{
// Stuff changed in here
}
When I do `git diff` on the file containing this
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a function like so:
void MyClass::SomeFunction(int someParameter)
{
// Stuff changed in here
}
When I do `git diff` on the file containing this function, I get a
chunk showing some changed code in
Am 02.01.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Robert Dailey:
I have a function like so:
void MyClass::SomeFunction(int someParameter)
{
// Stuff changed in here
}
When I do `git diff` on the file containing this function, I get a
chunk showing some changed code in this function somewhere in the
I have a function like so:
void MyClass::SomeFunction(int someParameter)
{
// Stuff changed in here
}
When I do `git diff` on the file containing this function, I get a
chunk showing some changed code in this function somewhere in the
middle of the body. However, the chunk header shows my
Hi,
Robert Dailey wrote:
I have a function like so:
void MyClass::SomeFunction(int someParameter)
{
// Stuff changed in here
}
When I do `git diff` on the file containing this function, I get a
chunk showing some changed code in this function somewhere in the
middle of the body.
Raphael Kubo da Costa raphael.kubo.da.co...@intel.com writes:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: Always check stat_tracking_info()'s
return value.
Sorry, this was supposed to be PATCH v2. The subject's wrong, but the
contents are fine.
---
v2: Use `test_when_finished' to clean up the
(+cc: Duy, who understands shallow push well)
Hi,
Stefan Beller wrote:
This commit shortens execute_commands loop over all commands by moving
The commit message can be simplified by leaving out This commit and
stating what the commit does in the imperative, focusing on what problem
the commit
The code handling %(upstream:track) and %(upstream:trackshort) assumed
it always had a valid branch that had been sanitized earlier in
populate_value(), and thus did not check the return value of the call to
stat_tracking_info().
While there is indeed some sanitization code that basically
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org wrote:
Am 02.01.2015 um 18:03 schrieb Robert Dailey:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a function like so:
void MyClass::SomeFunction(int someParameter)
{
// Stuff changed
The code handling %(upstream:track) and %(upstream:trackshort) assumed
it always had a valid branch that had been sanitized earlier in
populate_value(), and thus did not check the return value of the call to
stat_tracking_info().
While there is indeed some sanitization code that basically
The code handling %(upstream:track) and %(upstream:trackshort) assumed
it always had a valid branch that had been sanitized earlier in
populate_value(), and thus did not check the return value of the call to
stat_tracking_info().
While there is indeed some sanitization code that basically
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Raphael Kubo da Costa
raphael.kubo.da.co...@intel.com wrote:
The code handling %(upstream:track) and %(upstream:trackshort) assumed
it always had a valid branch that had been sanitized earlier in
populate_value(), and thus did not check the return value of the
Robert Dailey wrote:
The 'void' does not start on the leftmost column, due to tabbing there
can be any number of whitespace (the regex should account for this).
Ah, that explains it. The default C++ pattern assumes the 'void'
starts at the leftmost column, so that the funcname header
14 matches
Mail list logo
