Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-18 Thread Martin Schlemmer
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 16:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Brad Roberts wrote: > > > > braddr:x:1000:1000:Brad Roberts,,,:/home/braddr:/bin/bash > > > > All gecos entries on all my debian boxes are of the form: > > > >fullname, office number, office extension, and home

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Brad Roberts
The patch needed some tweaking, but not in the way you thought. :) commit a6aa192641e9ea242332fee4916abf5ad2640d75 tree c69878b009ec2f505d75aa7d99e9ee30cd21ab02 parent 60e1274460f50bcecdc3f162b4fced9e5ebf2dfb author Brad Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1113789519 -0700 committer Brad Roberts <[EMAIL P

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > Am I just slow or does the first dst-- make it miss the last trailing > /[,;.]/? Hopefully not. It _should_ make it miss the last '\0', but hey, it got my usual amount of testing (ie none). I'm sure Brad can tell us whether it makes any difference..

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 01:39:10AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Brad Roberts wrote: > > > > braddr:x:1000:1000:Brad Roberts,,,:/home/braddr:/bin/bash > > > > All gecos entries on all my debian boxes are of th

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Brad Roberts wrote: > > braddr:x:1000:1000:Brad Roberts,,,:/home/braddr:/bin/bash > > All gecos entries on all my debian boxes are of the form: > >fullname, office number, office extension, and home number Ahh, ok. I'll make the "cleanup" thing just remove strange cha

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Brad Roberts
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Brad Roberts wrote: > > > > (ok, author looks better, but committer doesn't obey the AUTHOR_ vars yet) > > They should't, but maybe I should add COMMITTER_xxx overrides. I just do > _not_ want people to think that they should claim

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Brad Roberts wrote: > > > > (ok, author looks better, but committer doesn't obey the AUTHOR_ vars yet) > > They should't, but maybe I should add COMMITTER_xxx overrides. I just do > _not_ want people to think that they should clai

Re: [patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Brad Roberts wrote: > > (ok, author looks better, but committer doesn't obey the AUTHOR_ vars yet) They should't, but maybe I should add COMMITTER_xxx overrides. I just do _not_ want people to think that they should claim to be somebody else: it's not a security issue (you

[patch] fork optional branch point normazilation

2005-04-17 Thread Brad Roberts
(ok, author looks better, but committer doesn't obey the AUTHOR_ vars yet) This might not be how you intended git fork to behave, but without doing _something_ to protect the head parameter a bit, this is just asking for a corrutped .git/HEAD file. commit 76faec069dfeae59c3ce5faaad10bdcded0cc908