Toralf Förster writes:
> On 12/18/2012 05:41 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> I could reproduce it, too, on Linux.
>>
>> The reason it does not always happen is that git will not re-examine the
>> file content unless the timestamp on the file is older than what's in
>> the index. So it is a race conditio
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Toralf Förster wrote:
>
> /me still wonders whether this race condition is a feature or an issue
> in GIT - b/c it means that 2 different people cloning the same
> repository get different results.
The problem is that Git assumes that conversion from git to the wo
On 12/18/2012 05:41 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> I could reproduce it, too, on Linux.
>
> The reason it does not always happen is that git will not re-examine the
> file content unless the timestamp on the file is older than what's in
> the index. So it is a race condition for git to see whether the fil
On 12/18/2012 05:41 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> I could reproduce it, too, on Linux.
>
> The reason it does not always happen is that git will not re-examine the
> file content unless the timestamp on the file is older than what's in
> the index. So it is a race condition for git to see whether the fil
On 12/18/2012 01:15 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> HTH
> /Torsten
Thx Torsten - I forwarded this answer (and all the other answers) to the
boinc alpha mailing list
- there's now a discussion about that.
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E50
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 01:15:30PM +0100, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> I could re-produce the problem here:
> git version 1.8.0.197.g5a90748
> Mac OS X (that what I had at hands fastest)
I could reproduce it, too, on Linux.
The reason it does not always happen is that git will not re-examine th
On 18.12.12 10:55, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 02:56 AM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
>> On 18 December 2012 03:01, Toralf Förster wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 12:38 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
On 17 December 2012 21:23, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm faced with this situation
On 12/18/2012 02:56 AM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
> On 18 December 2012 03:01, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 12:38 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
>>> On 17 December 2012 21:23, Toralf Förster wrote:
Hello,
I'm faced with this situation :
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/pri
On 12/18/2012 10:55 AM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> failed test(s): t3600 t7508
>
> fixed 0
> success 8342
> failed 8
> broken 56
> total 8528
>
ick forgot these :
n22 /usr/portage/dev-vcs/git # grep -i "^not ok" /tmp/git.log | grep -v TODO
not ok - 15 Test that "git rm -f" fails if its rm fa
On 18 December 2012 03:01, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 12:38 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
>> On 17 December 2012 21:23, Toralf Förster wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm faced with this situation :
>>> http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/boinc_alpha/2012-December/017371.html
>>> and ev
On 12/17/2012 12:38 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
> On 17 December 2012 21:23, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm faced with this situation :
>> http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/boinc_alpha/2012-December/017371.html
>> and even a "git stash" doesn't help.
>
> Hi Toralf,
>
> That l
On 17 December 2012 21:23, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm faced with this situation :
> http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/boinc_alpha/2012-December/017371.html
> and even a "git stash" doesn't help.
Hi Toralf,
That list is private and not visible without an account. Can you
t
Hello,
I'm faced with this situation :
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/boinc_alpha/2012-December/017371.html
and even a "git stash" doesn't help.
Now /me wonders whether that repository is just screwed up or whether I
do have with git.1.8.0.2 at an almost stable Gentoo linux a probl
13 matches
Mail list logo
