On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:30 PM Lukáš Krejčí wrote:
>
> I am talking about `git bisect replay`. The shell script, as far as I
> can see, only updates the references (ref/bisect/*) and never checks if
> the revisions marked as 'good' are ancestors of the 'bad' one.
> Therefore,
On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 17:31 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> > When Git replays the bisect log, it only updates refs/bisect/bad,
> > refs/bisect/good-*, refs/bisect/skip-* and reconstructs the log in
> > .git/BISECT_LOG. After that check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad() verifies
> > that all good
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:43 PM Lukáš Krejčí wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> after looking into this today, I'm not sure if this can be considered a
> bug - it's just that I expected Git to check out the exact commit to
> test that was there before resetting the bisect. That made me uncertain
>
Hello again,
after looking into this today, I'm not sure if this can be considered a
bug - it's just that I expected Git to check out the exact commit to
test that was there before resetting the bisect. That made me uncertain
whether Git restored the correct state.
When I looked at what Git
On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 13:01 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> To debug I think it would be interesting to see the output of the
> following commands just before we get different results:
>
> git for-each-ref 'refs/bisect/*'
>
> and
>
> git log -1 --format=oneline
>
I placed the following
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:20 PM Lukáš Krejčí wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 12:04 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> >
> > Could you try to check that? And first could you give us the output of:
> >
> > git merge-base 5b394b2ddf0347bef56e50c69a58773c94343ff3
> >
(I'm sorry about the formatting, here's the message again.)
Executing git bisect replay reaches a different commit than
the one that is obtained by running the commands from the bisect log manually.
Distribution: Arch Linux
git: 2.19.2-1
perl: 5.28.1-1
pcre2: 10.32-1
expat: 2.2.6-1
perl-error:
On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 12:04 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
>
> Could you try to check that? And first could you give us the output of:
>
> git merge-base 5b394b2ddf0347bef56e50c69a58773c94343ff3
> 94710cac0ef4ee177a63b5227664b38c95bbf703
$ git merge-base 5b394b2ddf0347bef56e50c69a58773c94343ff3
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:53 AM Lukáš Krejčí wrote:
>
> Executing git bisect replay reaches a different commit than
> the one that is obtained by running the commands from the bisect log manually.
> $ git bisect replay /var/tmp/git-bisect.log
> We are not bisecting.
> Bisecting: a merge base
Just checked gitk, it seems to work fine including children windows.
This problem seems to affect git-gui only.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:16 AM Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:29 PM Stefan Beller wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:13 AM Kenn Sebesta wrote:
> > > v2.19.2,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:29 PM Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:13 AM Kenn Sebesta wrote:
> > v2.19.2, installed from brew on macOS Mojave 14.2.1.
> >
> > `git-gui` is my much beloved go-to tool for everything git.
> > Unfortunately, on my new Macbook Air it seems to have a bug.
On 11/28/2018 2:45 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
I was preparing a new "sparse" algorithm for calculating the
interesting objects to send on push. The important steps happen
during 'git pack-objects', so I was creating test cases to see
how the behavior changes in narrow cases. Specifically, when
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:13 AM Kenn Sebesta wrote:
>
> v2.19.2, installed from brew on macOS Mojave 14.2.1.
>
> `git-gui` is my much beloved go-to tool for everything git.
> Unfortunately, on my new Macbook Air it seems to have a bug. When I
> first load the program, the parent window populates
I was afraid that was the reason. Oh well, at least we know why :-)
Thanks Ævar!
Best-F
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 9:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>
>> On Sun, Nov 11 2018, Federico Lucifredi wrote:
>>
>> git clone of non-existent repository results in request for credentials
>>
>>
On Sun, Nov 11 2018, Federico Lucifredi wrote:
> git clone of non-existent repository results in request for credentials
>
> REPRODUCING:
> sudo apt install git
> git clone https://github.com/xorbit/LiFePo4owered-Pi.git#this repo does
> not exist
>
> Git will then prompt for username and
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:20 PM Niko Dzhus wrote:
> Looks like the issue appeared after updating git from brew.
>
> A quick search revealed that brew changed how it builds git recently.
> I think, it just didn't include i18n by default before, so I never
> noticed this.
>
> Anybody here familiar
Looks like the issue appeared after updating git from brew.
I tried it on a different mac laptop, git 2.18 still used English, but
after updating to 2.19 it started using secondary language.
A quick search revealed that brew changed how it builds git recently.
I think, it just didn't include
Tried what you suggested - it seems, it only ignores English. In you
example, with Swedish as primary and German as secondary, git uses
Swedish.
With more that one secondary language, the one with a higher priority
is being used, as expected. I also tried using non-generic English
(English-UK and
On Fri, Sep 14 2018, Niko Dzhus wrote:
> It doesn't use English when other language is available as a secondary
> language.
>
> Reproducing:
>
> 1. Open "Language & Region" in macos settings
> 2. In "Preferred languages" box, set English as a primary language.
> 3. Add another language, that
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Juan Navarro wrote:
> Gitk "find commit" search function doesn't follow the "IgnCase" option that
> is selectable with a combo selector on the right side of the window; it
> should be searching in a case-insensitive way, but it doesn't.
>
> Steps to
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:44:54PM -0400, Surenkumar Nihalani wrote:
> Push summary: [remote rejected] (cannot lock ref 'refs/heads/master': is at
> cf2cc0c147d8215ec87d3ddaf32f0b2c58630423 but expected
> fdda486ad43a6e6b5dc5f2795ce27124e0686752)
This generally indicates that somebody was
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Totsten Bögershausen wrote:
> On 2018-04-26 19:23, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> Sure. First, though, note that I can make it pass (or at least "not
>> ok...TODO known breakage") with the following patch (may be
>> whitespace-damaged by gmail):
>>
On 2018-04-26 19:23, Elijah Newren wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
Hm,
thanks for the report.
I don't have a high sierra box, but I can probably get one.
t0050 -should- pass automagically, so I feel that I can do something.
Unless someone
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> Hm,
> thanks for the report.
> I don't have a high sierra box, but I can probably get one.
> t0050 -should- pass automagically, so I feel that I can do something.
> Unless someone is faster of course.
Sweet, thanks
On 26.04.18 18:48, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On HFS (which appears to be the default Mac filesystem prior to High
> Sierra), unicode names are "normalized" before recording. Thus with a
> script like:
>
> mkdir tmp
> cd tmp
>
> auml=$(printf "\303\244")
> aumlcdiar=$(printf
t re-cloning, as my
https://public-inbox.org/git/874lkuvtve@evledraar.gmail.com/
explains.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bryan Turner [mailto:btur...@atlassian.com]V
>> Sent: 19 April 2018 23:14
>> To: Andrew Ducker
>> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
&
soft/vscode/issues/48211 if anyone wants
to chime in with advice over there :-)
Thanks,
Andy
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Turner [mailto:btur...@atlassian.com]
> Sent: 19 April 2018 23:14
> To: Andrew Ducker
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Bug Report - Pull remote br
Andrew,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Andrew Ducker
wrote:
>
> What happens:
> When I create a new tag on the remote (changing nothing else)
> "git pull origin master" produces the following:
> From git.internal.company.com:team/testrepo
>* branch
] On Behalf Of Junio C Hamano
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 23:03
To: Vromen, Tomer <tomer.vro...@intel.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug report: git-stash doesn't return correct status code
Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> "Vromen, Tomer" <tom
Junio C Hamano writes:
> "Vromen, Tomer" writes:
>
>>> git stash && git checkout -b new-feature-branch && git stash pop
>>
>> This is useful when I realize that I want to open a new branch for my
>> changes (that I haven't committed yet).
>> However,
"Vromen, Tomer" writes:
>> git stash && git checkout -b new-feature-branch && git stash pop
>
> This is useful when I realize that I want to open a new branch for my changes
> (that I haven't committed yet).
> However, I might have forgotten to save my changes in the
Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:15:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King writes:
>>> That's probably a reasonable sanity check, but I think we need to abort
>>> and not just have a too-small DISPLAY array. Because later code like the
>>> hunk-splitting is
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:53:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sam Kuper writes:
>
> > 1. It would yield, IIUC, less flexibility to create new kinds of view
> > based on a consistent, standardised underlying model.
> >
> > 2. It is harder to read, for some types of
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:30:28PM +, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 02/03/2018, Jeff King wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy way to do what you want
> > (show word-diffs but apply the full diff).
>
> Oh :(
>
> That would be a *very* useful feature to have,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:15:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > That's probably a reasonable sanity check, but I think we need to abort
> > and not just have a too-small DISPLAY array. Because later code like the
> > hunk-splitting is going to assume
Sam Kuper writes:
> 1. It would yield, IIUC, less flexibility to create new kinds of view
> based on a consistent, standardised underlying model.
>
> 2. It is harder to read, for some types of input (e.g. prose) than the
> view generated by the existing word-diff
On 02/03/2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>> Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy way to do what you want
>> (show word-diffs but apply the full diff).
>
> The current "word-diff" discards the information on where the lines
> end, and it
Jeff King writes:
> Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy way to do what you want
> (show word-diffs but apply the full diff).
The current "word-diff" discards the information on where the lines
end, and it is pretty much hopeless/useless in the context of "add
-p". It
On 02/03/2018, Jeff King wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy way to do what you want
> (show word-diffs but apply the full diff).
Oh :(
That would be a *very* useful feature to have, especially where
multiple small (e.g. single character or single word) changes
On 02/03/2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Is this reproducible for you?
Yes. It seems to occur consistently, given the same input.
> Do you have more details about how I can reproduce it?
Unfortunately, the particular git repo I encountered it on is private,
otherwise I would
Jeff King writes:
> That's probably a reasonable sanity check, but I think we need to abort
> and not just have a too-small DISPLAY array. Because later code like the
> hunk-splitting is going to assume that there's a 1:1 line
> correspondence. We definitely don't want to end up
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:53:34AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Because the array is full of "undef". See parse_diff(), which does this:
> >
> > my @diff = run_cmd_pipe("git", @diff_cmd, "--", $path);
> > ...
> > @colored =
Jeff King writes:
> Because the array is full of "undef". See parse_diff(), which does this:
>
> my @diff = run_cmd_pipe("git", @diff_cmd, "--", $path);
> ...
> @colored = run_cmd_pipe(@display_cmd);
> ...
> for (my $i = 0; $i < @diff; $i++) {
> ...
>
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 11:04:34PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Use of uninitialized value $_ in print at
> > /usr/lib/git-core/git-add--interactive line 1371, line 75.
> [...]
>
> Strange. The relevant line, for reference:
>
> $ dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile git_2.11.0-3+deb9u2_amd64.deb |
>
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:19:35AM +, Sam Kuper wrote:
> The bug is that in the midst of running
>
> git -c interactive.diffFilter="git diff --word-diff --color" add --patch
That's not how interactive.diffFilter is supposed to work.
It's meant to have the output of an existing diff piped
Hi,
Sam Kuper wrote:
> First, background. I encountered a bug on Debian Stretch, using this
> git version:
>
> $ git --version
> git version 2.11.0
>
> The bug is that in the midst of running
>
> git -c interactive.diffFilter="git diff --word-diff --color" add --patch
>
> and after having
Hi all,
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > +git-for-windows
First of all, this is clearly not a Windows-specific problem, as the index
file *is* updated, and that is simply the same behavior as on
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> +git-for-windows
> Hi,
>
> Raining Chain wrote:
>
>> On Windows 10, git version 2.16.2.windows.1, running the command
>>
>> git status
>>
>> will trigger a file change event to file C:\myPath\.git "Attributes
>>
+git-for-windows
Hi,
Raining Chain wrote:
> On Windows 10, git version 2.16.2.windows.1, running the command
>
> git status
>
> will trigger a file change event to file C:\myPath\.git "Attributes changed."
>
> This causes problems when using scripts that detect file changes such
> as tsc -w
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Given that all references to this shell function seem to do
>
> sometree=$(toptree_for_commit $something)
>
> and then $sometree is used as if it were a tree object name, I can
> understand why the lack of
Hi Bulat,
Please make sure to keep the Git mailing list in Cc: (I get *very* prickly
when Git users treat me as a free-of-cost help desk, and when I get that
annoyed, I stop helping).
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018, Bulat Musin wrote:
> Yes, I tested again.
>
> With built 2.16... and it shows error
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Bulat Musin wrote:
> Now there are 3 sequential commits, I want to squash them into 1:
>
> git rebase -i HEAD~2
>
> In editor I changed all "pick" to "squash", saved file, I got:
>
> error: cannot 'squash' without a previous commit
You cannot start with a squash. You
Stephen R Guglielmo writes:
> diff --git a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> index cc033af73..dec085a23 100755
> --- a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> +++ b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ squash_msg () {
>
>
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Stephen R Guglielmo
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Stephen R Guglielmo
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Junio C
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Stephen R Guglielmo
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Stefan Beller writes:
There
Stephen R Guglielmo writes:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I can't help more.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> Avery
>
> Thanks all for the discussion/replies.
>
> We use subtrees extensively in our environment right now.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Stefan Beller writes:
>>> There has not been feedback for a while on this thread.
>>> I think that is because subtrees
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>> There has not been feedback for a while on this thread.
>> I think that is because subtrees are not in anyone's hot
>> interest area currently.
>>
>> This is definitely the
Stefan Beller writes:
> There has not been feedback for a while on this thread.
> I think that is because subtrees are not in anyone's hot
> interest area currently.
>
> This is definitely the right place to submit bugs.
> Looking through "git log --format="%ae %s" -S
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Stephen R Guglielmo
wrote:
> Hi, just following up on this bug report. I have not heard back. Is
> there additional information that's needed? Is there a better place to
> file bug reports?
>
> Additionally, I have confirmed that this bug
Hi, just following up on this bug report. I have not heard back. Is
there additional information that's needed? Is there a better place to
file bug reports?
Additionally, I have confirmed that this bug still exists with git
version 2.16.1.
Thanks
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Stephen R
Hi, just following up on this bug report. I have not heard back. Is
there additional information that's needed? Is there a better place to
file bug reports?
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Stephen R Guglielmo
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've noticed an issue regarding the
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:37:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Well, MaintNotes on the 'todo' branch needs a bit of updating, as it
> says something somewhat misleading.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: MaintNotes: clarify the purpose of maint->master upmerge
Yup, this makes sense. Thanks for
Jeff King writes:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 12:45:03PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>> > Out of curiosity, did this change at some point? I thought the process
>> > used to be to merge to maint, and then pick up topics in master by
>> >
Hi Peff,
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 09:22:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> >
> > > Done: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1421
> > >
> > > I added credit to Jeff in the PR's description.
> >
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:42:51PM -0800, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed interesting... this one's for the books...
> >> Thanks for the patches. Any idea when these are going to make it to the
> >>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 12:45:03PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Out of curiosity, did this change at some point? I thought the process
> > used to be to merge to maint, and then pick up topics in master by
> > merging maint to master.
>
> If you look at
Jeff King writes:
> Out of curiosity, did this change at some point? I thought the process
> used to be to merge to maint, and then pick up topics in master by
> merging maint to master.
If you look at "Sync with maint" merges made to 'master', you'd
notice that most of them are
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 09:22:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
>
> > Done: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1421
> >
> > I added credit to Jeff in the PR's description.
>
> Sadly, the PR's description won't make it into the commit
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi Isaac,
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
>
>> Done: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1421
>>
>> I added credit to Jeff in the PR's description.
>
> Sadly, the PR's description won't make it into the commit
Hi Isaac,
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> Done: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1421
>
> I added credit to Jeff in the PR's description.
Sadly, the PR's description won't make it into the commit history, and the
authorship really should have been retained.
I found
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:53:50AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > They haven't even been reviewed yet. If they get good feedback, then the
> > maintainer will pick them up, then merge them to 'next', and then
> > eventually to 'master', after which they'd become part of the next
> > major
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:42:51PM -0800, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
>
>> Indeed interesting... this one's for the books...
>> Thanks for the patches. Any idea when these are going to make it to the
>> official Git client builds? (specifically the Windows one)
>
>
Done: https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1421
I added credit to Jeff in the PR's description.
Note that I tried compiling master, but failed due to a reason
unrelated to this patch:
builtin/checkout.c:24:10: fatal error: fscache.h: No such file or directory
Maybe I wasn't building it
Hi Isaac,
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> I cloned git's codebase, applied the four patches on master, built and
> tested on Ubuntu Trusty. (After verifying that master indeed exhibits
> this behaviour on Linux as well. Just checking).
> Seems to work fine.
> I also looked at the
Hello Johannes, Jeff,
I cloned git's codebase, applied the four patches on master, built and
tested on Ubuntu Trusty. (After verifying that master indeed exhibits
this behaviour on Linux as well. Just checking).
Seems to work fine.
I also looked at the code. Most of the patched lines relate to
Hi Isaac,
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> Indeed interesting... this one's for the books...
> Thanks for the patches. Any idea when these are going to make it to
> the official Git client builds? (specifically the Windows one)
If you help them getting reviewed, tested, and validated,
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:42:51PM -0800, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> Indeed interesting... this one's for the books...
> Thanks for the patches. Any idea when these are going to make it to the
> official Git client builds? (specifically the Windows one)
They haven't even been reviewed yet. If they
Indeed interesting... this one's for the books...
Thanks for the patches. Any idea when these are going to make it to
the official Git client builds? (specifically the Windows one)
On 3 January 2018 at 14:28, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 12:59:48PM -0800, Isaac
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 12:59:48PM -0800, Isaac Shabtay wrote:
> Target directory is deleted on clone failures.
>
> Steps to reproduce, for example on Windows:
>
> cd /d %TEMP%
> mkdir dest
> git clone https://some-fake-url/whatever-makes-git-clone-fail dest
>
> Of course, the clone will fail
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS)
wrote:
> Hello, Git folks. I managed to accidentally break the our test lab by
> attempting to git mv a directory with a submodule inside. It seems like if a
> reset does an undo on a mv, the workfold entry should be
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 09:55:58AM -0400, Adrian Kappel wrote:
> Hello all, not sure if the issue I've come across is a known bug or
> addressable, but wanted to report it just in-case.
Thanks for the detailed description - my question is inline
>
>
> ** Summary
>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25:00PM +0200, Aleksandar Pavic wrote:
> I have a file
>
> app/Controller/CustomerCardVerificationController.php
>
> And when I take a look at changes log, I get this (no matter which tool I
> use):
>
> 2017-07-31 19:41 dule o membership renew payment
On 08/31/2017 08:36 AM, Kevin Daudt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25:00PM +0200, Aleksandar Pavic wrote:
>> I have a file
>>
>> app/Controller/CustomerCardVerificationController.php
>>
>> And when I take a look at changes log, I get this (no matter which tool I
>> use):
>>
>> 2017-07-31
Hm, thanks, but the link was not helpful, there are no merge commits to
master branch.
Those changes should have not been undone, that's how we caught it,
because 1 line peace of code introduced new feature (+-10% tolerance on
credit card verification amount).
So most likeley they were
The following answer that I got back in 2015 from Jeff King might be
relevant to your problem:
https://marc.info/?l=git=144178948506788=2
Regards,
Dov
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kevin Daudt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25:00PM +0200, Aleksandar Pavic wrote:
>> I
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25:00PM +0200, Aleksandar Pavic wrote:
> I have a file
>
> app/Controller/CustomerCardVerificationController.php
>
> And when I take a look at changes log, I get this (no matter which tool I
> use):
>
> 2017-07-31 19:41 dule o membership renew payment
On 20 July 2017 at 02:54, Tillson Galloway wrote:
> Context:
> We currently have a git project with a root directory ("~/project")
> for pipelines and deployment of a Node app, and then a subdirectory
> ("~/project/project-app").
> After realizing that we didn't need
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Imagine this scenario:
>
> - Contributor A writes a change on 2017-07-01 and send it in to me
> - Contributor B writes a change on 2017-07-03 and send it in to me
> - I apply change from B on 2017-07-04 on 'master'
> - I apply change from A on
Todd Lewis writes:
> Trying not to sound snide, but, what's the point of "--date=" on commits if
> you
> can't use it later? Granted, things always seem harder until you understand
> how
> the work. Thanks again.
You do not sound snide at all, at least to me ;-)
Imagine
On 07/06/2017 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If you didn't create this repository back in 2012, then the syntax
> "master@{01-01-2012}" that asks "Back at the beginning of 2012, what
> object did the master branch point at?" does not have a sensible
> answer. That can be seen in the warning
Todd Lewis writes:
> [utoddl@tarna gitbug]$ git diff master@{01-01-2012} charter.txt
> warning: Log for 'master' only goes back to Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:19:45 -0400.
What you observed is how @{} syntax is designed to
work, and is not limited to "git diff". Any Git command
On 2017-05-26 07:51, Yu-Hsuan Chen wrote:
> Dear maintainer,
>
> There is a bug where committing a large file corrupts the pack file in
> Windows. Steps to recreate are:
>
> 1. git init
> 2. stage and commit a file larger than 4 GB (not entirely sure about this
> size)
> 3. git checkout -f
>
>
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:51:34PM +0800, Yu-Hsuan Chen wrote:
> There is a bug where committing a large file corrupts the pack file in
> Windows. Steps to recreate are:
>
> 1. git init
> 2. stage and commit a file larger than 4 GB (not entirely sure about this
> size)
> 3. git checkout -f
>
>
On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 14:51 +0530, Rashmi Pai wrote:
> I am a corporate user of git. I noticed that when you switch between
> the branches and do a git stash ( I miss spelled it as git stahs). Git
> asked if i meant git stash. and i entered yes. and git printed the
> character y infinite times.
Jeff King writes:
>> 4. Now git says git: 'stahs' is not a git command. See 'git --help'.
>>
>> Did you mean this?
>>
>> stash
>
> After this step git exits, and you're back at your shell prompt...
Perhaps the suggestion message should be rephrased not to sound like
it is
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 03:16:06PM +0530, Rashmi Pai wrote:
> Below are the steps to reproduce.
> 1. create a local branch and make some code changes in the same branch.
> 2. now checkout another branch. git says Your local changes to the
> following files would be overwritten by checkout.
> 3.
Samuel Lijin writes:
> After some more digging (and familiarizing myself with the
> behind-the-scenes logic) the issue is that dir.c has this implicit
> assumption that a directory which contains only untracked and ignored
> files should itself be considered untracked. While
After some more digging (and familiarizing myself with the
behind-the-scenes logic) the issue is that dir.c has this implicit
assumption that a directory which contains only untracked and ignored
files should itself be considered untracked. While that works fine for
use cases where we're asking if
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Chris Johnson wrote:
> Good assessment/understanding of the issue. git clean -n does not
> report anything as being targeted for removal, and git clean -f
> matches that behavior. I agree with it probably being related
> specifically to
1 - 100 of 298 matches
Mail list logo