On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
This works just fine. Go ahead, apply my patch, and run it, the second
branch gets updated.
Yes, but as you said:
That is already the case, my patch will cause this to generate the same
output:
% git
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Sverre Rabbelier srabbel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
This works just fine. Go ahead, apply my patch, and run it, the second
branch gets updated.
Yes, but as you said:
That is
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
All right, so I run this and get this:
% git fast-export master..master
reset refs/heads/master
from 8c7a786b6c8eae8eac91083cdc9a6e337bc133b0
As an user of fast-export, what do I do with
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh really? This is with your patches:
% git fast-export --{im,ex}port-marks=/tmp/marks foo1 ^foo2 foo3..foo3
reset refs/heads/foo1
from :21
reset refs/heads/foo3
from :21
reset refs/heads/foo3
from :21
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show me a single remote helper that manually stores SHA-1's and I
might believe you, but I doubt that, marks are too convenient.
Oh dear lord. Why are you arguing? Explain how coming to a consensus
on this will help accomplish something useful, and then I can explain
Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
That's weird, we have this bit:
+ if (elem-whence != REV_CMD_REV elem-whence !=
REV_CMD_RIGHT)
+ continue;
If I understand correctly that should cause it to only output revs
(e.g. 'foo1') and the rhs side of a have..want spec.
If
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember right, '^foo1' is (whence == REV_CMD_REV) with (flags ==
UNINTERESTING). That's why sequencer.c checks for unadorned revs like
this:
if (opts-revs-cmdline.nr == 1
Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
I know there was a reason why using UNINTERESTING didn't work
(otherwise we could've used that to start with, instead of needing
Junio's whence solution). I think all refs ended up being marked as
UNINTERESTING or somesuch.
True. Is it be possible to check
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Sverre Rabbelier srabbel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
I know there was a reason why using UNINTERESTING didn't work
(otherwise we could've used that to start with,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show me a single remote helper that manually stores SHA-1's and I
might believe you, but I doubt that, marks are too convenient.
Oh dear lord. Why are you arguing? Explain how coming to a
Hi,
Joined late to the party :)
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Sverre Rabbelier srabbel...@gmail.com wrote:
This happens only when the corresponding commits are not exported in
the current fast-export run. This can happen either when the relevant
commit is already marked, or when the commit
Hi Felipe,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
This test is completely wrong.
1) Where are the marks file?
2) master..master shouldn't export anything
Why shouldn't master..master export anything? It means update the
master ref; we already have all commits up to and including master^0.
The underlying
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Felipe,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
This test is completely wrong.
1) Where are the marks file?
2) master..master shouldn't export anything
Why shouldn't master..master export anything? It means update the
master
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Does it mean that? I don't think so, but let's assume that's the case.
We don't have all those commits; without the marks we have nothing. Or
what exactly do you mean by 'we'?
Not everyone uses marks.
Ciao,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Does it mean that? I don't think so, but let's assume that's the case.
We don't have all those commits; without the marks we have nothing. Or
what exactly do you mean by 'we'?
Not everyone
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Again, if you don't have marks, I don't see what you expect to be
exported with 'master..master', even with marks, I don't see what you
expect.
And that's fine. Unless you were trying to do some work and this lack
of understanding got in the way.
In that case, with a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Felipe Contreras wrote:
2) master..master shouldn't export anything
The underlying issue -- as explained in the thread -- is when you want to
update master to a commit that
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Again, if you don't have marks, I don't see what you expect to be
exported with 'master..master', even with marks, I don't see what you
expect.
And that's fine. Unless you were trying to do
Felipe Contreras wrote:
I don't need help, I am helping you, I was asked to take a look at
this patch series. If you don't want my help, then by all means, keep
this series rotting, it has being doing so for the past year without
anybody complaining.
Ah, so _that_ (namely getting Sverre's
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
The testcase is imho correct and does not need changing. So yes, I
don't want your help changing it. I don't suspect you will be using
git fast-export $(git rev-parse master)..master. It is safe and
good to add
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
I don't need help, I am helping you, I was asked to take a look at
this patch series. If you don't want my help, then by all means, keep
this series rotting, it has being doing so for the past
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Sverre Rabbelier srabbel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
The testcase is imho correct and does not need changing. So yes, I
don't want your help changing it. I don't suspect you will be using
git
Felipe Contreras wrote:
All right, so I run this and get this:
% git fast-export master..master
reset refs/heads/master
from 8c7a786b6c8eae8eac91083cdc9a6e337bc133b0
As an user of fast-export, what do I do with that now?
You passed master.. on the command line, indicating that your
23 matches
Mail list logo
