On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:00:37PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
So yeah, the most plausible theory to me so far is unluckiness combined
with pre-1.8.4.2. That should be easy to disprove if Henning tells us
his git version.
Henning mentioned it at the very top of his original problem
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:12:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
What happens if we rebase with it?
$ git checkout 01319837
$ git rebase -i HEAD^
will yield a todo file with the 8-character unambiguous abbreviation.
So I guess all is working
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:12:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
What happens if we rebase with it?
$ git
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:12:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
What happens if we rebase with it?
$ git checkout 01319837
$ git rebase -i HEAD^
will yield a todo file with the
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:00:37PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
So yeah, the most plausible theory to me so far is unluckiness combined
with pre-1.8.4.2. That should be easy to disprove if Henning tells us
his git version.
Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:00:37PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
So yeah, the most plausible theory to me so far is unluckiness combined
with pre-1.8.4.2. That should be easy to
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
What happens if we rebase with it?
$ git checkout 01319837
$ git rebase -i HEAD^
will yield a todo file with the 8-character unambiguous abbreviation.
So I guess all is working as intended there. Perhaps you really were
just very unlucky and an earlier
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 07:19:15AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
Hmm. There are some instances in git where we know we are looking for an
object of a particular type, and we can disambiguate a short-sha1 based
on the type. And git log is just such a place, whereas a generic git
rev-parse used by
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:54:32AM +0100, Henning Moll wrote:
. error: short SHA1 c4095c1 is ambiguous.
. fatal: Needed a single revision
. Invalid commit name: c4095c1
Now that the command failed, i checked for ambigous c4095c1. But there is
only one:
$ git log -1 c4095c1
. commit
Hi,
(git version 2.2.0)
I am currently developing/testing a script for a history surgery on a quite
big repository (~3 commits). The script always runs against exactly the
same copy of a git repository. So things should be reproducable, but sometimes
i get failures for the following
10 matches
Mail list logo
