Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
I basically made up names on the go, based on the messages.
Some of the questionable groups are:
BAD_DATE DATE_OVERFLOW
I guess it should be BAD_DATE_OVERFLOW to be more consistent?
I am not sure about consistency, but surely a
Hi Junio,
first of all: the improvements discussed here are already part of v6.
On 2015-06-19 19:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
I basically made up names on the go, based on the messages.
Some of the questionable groups are:
BAD_DATE
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
At the moment, the git-fsck's integrity checks are targeted toward the
end user, i.e. the error messages are really just messages, intended for
human consumption.
Under certain circumstances, some of those errors should be allowed to
be
Hi Junio,
On 2015-06-19 00:11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I haven't had a chance to go through the all the patches, but one
thing I noticed that did not appear in the interdiff is that some of
the message IDs are unclear. For example, there are BAD_something,
INVALID_something and
4 matches
Mail list logo
