On Thursday 16 November 2017 08:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
I guess this series is not yet ready for 'next'. When I tried to apply
this patch it doesn't seem to be applying cleanly. I get some
conflicts in 'sha1_name.c' possibly as a consequence of the changes to
the
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
> I guess this series is not yet ready for 'next'. When I tried to apply
> this patch it doesn't seem to be applying cleanly. I get some
> conflicts in 'sha1_name.c' possibly as a consequence of the changes to
> the file that aren't accounted by the patch.
Oh, it is tota
On Thursday 16 November 2017 03:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>> Are these two patches follow-up fixes (replacement of 3/3 plus an
>> extra patch) to jc/branch-name-sanity topic?
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
>> Thanks for working on these.
strbuf_check_branch_ref() is the central place where many codepaths
see if a proposed name is suitable for the name of a branch. It was
designed to allow us to get stricter than the check_refname_format()
check used for refnames in general, and we already use it to reject
a branch whose name begin
4 matches
Mail list logo