Dennis Kaarsemaker writes:
> I'd say it would make the consistency better, because now both look at
> what is checked out instead of at HEAD.
The version with your patch does not even look at HEAD; it looks at
whatever GIT_VERSION points at, which could be a very different
version that does not
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:53:36AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Dennis Kaarsemaker writes:
>
> > Instead of calling git-archive HEAD^{tree}, use $(GIT_VERSION)^{tree}.
> > This makes sure the archive name and contents are consistent, if HEAD
> > has moved, but GIT-VERSION-FILE hasn't been regen
Dennis Kaarsemaker writes:
> Instead of calling git-archive HEAD^{tree}, use $(GIT_VERSION)^{tree}.
> This makes sure the archive name and contents are consistent, if HEAD
> has moved, but GIT-VERSION-FILE hasn't been regenerated yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dennis Kaarsemaker
> ---
> I have a somewh
Instead of calling git-archive HEAD^{tree}, use $(GIT_VERSION)^{tree}.
This makes sure the archive name and contents are consistent, if HEAD
has moved, but GIT-VERSION-FILE hasn't been regenerated yet.
Signed-off-by: Dennis Kaarsemaker
---
I have a somewhat odd setup in which I share a .git betwe
4 matches
Mail list logo