On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local is nonsense" could
> perhaps be more explanatory, but I couldn't come up with any better
> wording. But if you have ideas, feel free to switch it.
My only suggestion would be
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:26AM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local is nonsense" could
> > perhaps be more explanatory, but I couldn't come up with any better
> > wording. But
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:26AM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>> > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local is nonsense" could
>> > perhaps be more explanatory, but I couldn't come
John Keeping writes:
> In which case, should we just support it now?
>
> Normally I'd suggest banning controversial options on the basis that
> it's easier in the future to allow something that was previously banned
> than change the meaning of an options, but in this case I
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:16:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:26AM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> >> > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local
John Keeping writes:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:16:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>> > I guess "relative dates do not depend on timezones, so -local is
>> > meaningless" would be the closest thing.
>
> The discussion about
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:11:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Keeping writes:
> > OTOH, I don't think there's any disagreement about what "relative-local"
> > and "raw-local" would output were they supported, just whether they are
> > useful. There doesn't seem to be
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:29:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Keeping writes:
>
> > In which case, should we just support it now?
> >
> > Normally I'd suggest banning controversial options on the basis that
> > it's easier in the future to allow something that was
Jeff's first patch is unmodified but I've squashed the fixed currently
on "pu" into the second. I also realised while adding the tests that
"raw-local" is meaningless so I've modified the code to reject it in the
same way as "relative-local".
Jeff King (2):
fast-import: switch crash-report
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:55:38PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> Jeff's first patch is unmodified but I've squashed the fixed currently
> on "pu" into the second. I also realised while adding the tests that
> "raw-local" is meaningless so I've modified the code to reject it in the
> same way as
10 matches
Mail list logo