On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
A failing test has been added at the end for smart HTTP. It appears
that somewhere in the callchain --signed is forgotten and the
sending end not to send the certificate for some reason. If
somebody with a fresh set of
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 18 ++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 5d3c8bd..023d6d7 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1465,6 +1465,21 @@ static struct cache_entry
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 1cdb762..39fca8c 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1971,7 +1971,6 @@ int read_index_unmerged(struct index_state *istate
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 18 ++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 7f5645e..1cdb762 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1438,6 +1438,21 @@ static struct cache_entry
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Does the current codebase choke with such entries in the index file,
like you saw in your index file with both stage #0 and stage #1
entries?
Not sure, I couldn't reproduce an scenario with an index with multiple
entries
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
I was asking for an answer more from what you know about the code.
For example, would read_index_unmerged() choke if the index has two
or more stage #1 (or stage #3) entries for the same path (provided
that the index is
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
For my own curiosity, how do you get into this situation, and what does
it mean to have multiple stage#1 entries for the same path? What would
git cat-file
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Yes---that is what I meant by the virtual stuff. Unlike resolve
work by Daniel (around Sep 2005 $gmane/8088) that tried to use
multiple ancestors directly in a single merge, recursive limits
itself to repeated use of
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Check order when reading index
Please be careful when crafting the commit title. This single line
will be the only one that readers
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index c1a9619..3d70386 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1971,7 +1971,6 @@ int read_index_unmerged(struct index_state *istate
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 18 ++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 7f5645e..c1a9619 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1438,6 +1438,21 @@ static struct cache_entry
I think this line is dangerous, if add_cache_entry is not able to
remove higher-stages it will be looping forever, as happens in the
case of this thread.
I cannot see why it's even needed, and removing it doesn't break any test.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jaime Soriano Pastor
jsorianopas
Good points.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
After looking at what you did in 1/4, I started to wonder if we can
solve this in add_index_entry_with_check() in a less intrusive way.
When we call the function with a stage #0 entry, we are telling the
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 18 ++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 7f5645e..e117d3a 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1438,6 +1438,21 @@ static struct cache_entry
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Jaime Soriano Pastor
jsorianopas...@gmail.com wrote:
+ if (!ce_stage(ce))
+ die(Multiple stage entries for merged file '%s',
+ ce-name);
This case can be provoked by git update-index --index-info
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
t/t9904-unmerged-file-with-merged-entry.sh | 86
++
Isn't
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] git update-index --cacheinfo can be used to select
a stage when there are merged and unmerged entries
Hmph, what does it even mean
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
t/t9904-unmerged-file-with-merged-entry.sh | 86 ++
1 file changed, 86 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 t/t9904-unmerged-file-with-merged-entry.sh
diff --git a/t/t9904-unmerged-file-with-merged-entry.sh
--cacheinfo can be used to select an specific staged
version to resolve the conflict, without the need of reseting the working
copy. It did nothing before.
Tests added for these cases. Rest of the tests remain unchanged and pass too.
Jaime Soriano Pastor (4):
read_index_unmerged doesn't loop
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 21 +++--
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index 7f5645e..c932b83 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -1933,6 +1933,7 @@ int
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index c932b83..d549d0b 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -935,6 +935,7 @@ static int
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
builtin/update-index.c | 1 +
cache.h| 1 +
read-cache.c | 3 ++-
t/t9904-unmerged-file-with-merged-entry.sh | 14 +++---
4 files
...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
I'd like to add some tests too for this, but I don't know how to
reproduce this state with git commands only, is there any way to add
entries to the index without checkings?
Perhaps feeding update-index --index-info four
at 11:45 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Being a conservative, I'd rather avoid doing any magic during
read_cache() time. ls-files -s for example should show
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Being a conservative, I'd rather avoid doing any magic during
read_cache() time. ls-files -s for example should show the four
stages so that the broken state can be inspected.
Well, only read_cache_unmerged() is modified
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
A file in the index can be left as merged and unmerged at the same time
by some tools as libgit2, this causes some undesiderable behaviours in git.
Well, doesn't
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com writes:
Wrong implementations of tools that modify the index can left
some files as merged and unmerged at the same time. Avoid undesiderable
behaviours by handling
with git read-tree --empty, but I think this would be more intrussive
than the patch.
Regards,
Jaime Soriano.
Jaime Soriano Pastor (1):
read-cache.c: Ensure unmerged entries are removed
read-cache.c | 10 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.0.4.1.g8a38f21.dirty
Wrong implementations of tools that modify the index can left
some files as merged and unmerged at the same time. Avoid undesiderable
behaviours by handling this situation.
Signed-off-by: Jaime Soriano Pastor jsorianopas...@gmail.com
---
read-cache.c | 10 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions
29 matches
Mail list logo