Am 27.02.2017 um 23:18 schrieb René Scharfe:
> Am 27.02.2017 um 21:10 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> René Scharfe writes:
>>
>>> Would it make sense to mirror the previously existing condition and
>>> check for is_new instead? I.e.:
>>>
>>> if ((!patch->is_delete && !patch->new_name) ||
>
Am 27.02.2017 um 21:10 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
René Scharfe writes:
Would it make sense to mirror the previously existing condition and
check for is_new instead? I.e.:
if ((!patch->is_delete && !patch->new_name) ||
(!patch->is_new&& !pa
René Scharfe writes:
> Would it make sense to mirror the previously existing condition and
> check for is_new instead? I.e.:
>
> if ((!patch->is_delete && !patch->new_name) ||
> (!patch->is_new&& !patch->old_name)) {
>
Yes, probably.
> or
>
>
Am 25.02.2017 um 11:13 schrieb Vegard Nossum:
If we have a patch like the one in the new test-case, then we will
try to rename a non-existant empty file, i.e. patch->old_name will
be NULL. In this case, a NULL entry will be added to fn_table, which
is not allowed (a subsequent binary search will
From: "Vegard Nossum"
On 25/02/2017 12:59, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Vegard Nossum"
If we have a patch like the one in the new test-case, then we will
"the one in the new test-case" needs a clearer reference to the
particular case so that future readers will know what it refers to.
Notice
On 25/02/2017 12:59, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Vegard Nossum"
If we have a patch like the one in the new test-case, then we will
"the one in the new test-case" needs a clearer reference to the
particular case so that future readers will know what it refers to.
Noticed while browsing the com
From: "Vegard Nossum"
If we have a patch like the one in the new test-case, then we will
"the one in the new test-case" needs a clearer reference to the particular
case so that future readers will know what it refers to. Noticed while
browsing the commit message..
..reads further; Maybe it
If we have a patch like the one in the new test-case, then we will
try to rename a non-existant empty file, i.e. patch->old_name will
be NULL. In this case, a NULL entry will be added to fn_table, which
is not allowed (a subsequent binary search will die with a NULL
pointer dereference).
The patch
8 matches
Mail list logo