Re: Apparent bug in 'git stash push ' loses untracked files

On 12/13, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > Hi Reid, > > On 13/12/2017 18:32, Reid Price wrote: > > > > When running 'git stash push ' if there are both tracked and > > untracked files in this subdirectory, the tracked files are stashed > > but the untracked files are discarded. > > I can reproduce this

Re: Apparent bug in 'git stash push ' loses untracked files

Hi, On 12/13, Reid Price wrote: > When running 'git stash push ' if there are both tracked and > untracked files in this subdirectory, the tracked files are stashed > but the untracked files are discarded. > > I can reproduce this on my system (OSX, git 2.14.1) by running the > below script as >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] travis: run tests with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX

On 12/12, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Lars Schneider writes: > > >> You're right, it's my first time using travis CI and I got confused > >> about how the .travis.yml works, thanks for catching that. Will > >> re-phrase the commit message. > > > > Szeder is spot on. If you

Re: [PATCH 3/3] travis: run tests with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX

use additional cycles on travis and would not bring that > > much benefit, as we are still running the test suite in the "vanilla" > > version in the 32-bit mode. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> > > --- > > .travis.y

Re: [PATCH 2/3] prune: fix pruning with multiple worktrees and split index

On 12/11, Brandon Williams wrote: > On 12/10, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > be489d02d2 ("revision.c: --indexed-objects add objects from all > > worktrees", 2017-08-23) made sure that pruning takes objects from all > > worktrees into account. > > > > It did

Re: [PATCH 1/3] repository: fix repo_read_index with submodules

On 12/11, Brandon Williams wrote: > On 12/10, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > repo_read_index calls read_index_from, which takes an path argument for > > the location of the index file. For the split index however it relies > > on the current working directory to construct th

Re: How to begin an error/die string? Upper- or lower-case letter?

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Lars Schneider wrote: > Hi, > > error() and die() messages seems to begin with upper-case and > lower-case letters in the Git code base: > > git grep 'error(_' | perl -nE 'say /.*error\(_\("(.).*/' | sort | uniq -c > git grep 'die(_'

[PATCH 2/3] prune: fix pruning with multiple worktrees and split index

the proper paths for the worktree. This fixes t5304-prune when ran with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX set. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- This also fixes t7009 when ran with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX. I'm not quite sure why it is fixed by this. Either way I tracked the failure do

[PATCH 3/3] travis: run tests with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX

only use additional cycles on travis and would not bring that much benefit, as we are still running the test suite in the "vanilla" version in the 32-bit mode. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- .travis.yml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletio

[PATCH 0/3] fixes for split index mode

t7814-grep-recurse-submodules.sh (Wstat: 256 Tests: 22 Failed: 13) Failed tests: 2-3, 5-10, 12-15, 22 Non-zero exit status: 1 This series fixes these and makes travis run the test suite with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX to avoid similar breakages in the future. Thomas Gummerer (3):

[PATCH 1/3] repository: fix repo_read_index with submodules

tive would have been to make the callers pass in the base path for the split index, however that ended up being more complicated, and I think we want to converge towards using struct repository for things like these anyway. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- cache.h

Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] t/README: remove mention of adding copyright notices

On 12/05, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi, > > Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > We generally no longer include copyright notices in new test scripts. > > However t/README still mentions it as something to include at the top of > > every new script. > > Whe

[PATCH v6 2/6] worktree: add can be created from any commit-ish

of git worktree add might find it helpful. Reported-by: Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 20 ++-- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/Docum

[PATCH v6 5/6] worktree: add --guess-remote flag to add subcommand

i.e. check if the new branch name, derived from the basename of the , uniquely matches the branch name of a remote-tracking branch, and if so check out that branch and set the upstream to the remote-tracking branch. Add a new --guess-remote option that enables exactly that behaviour. Signed-off-by: Thoma

[PATCH v6 6/6] add worktree.guessRemote config option

-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/config.txt | 10 ++ Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 3 +++ builtin/worktree.c | 14 -- t/t2025-worktree-add.sh| 31 +++ 4 files changed, 56 insertions

[PATCH v6 4/6] worktree: make add dwim

. create a new branch from the remote tracking branch and set the upstream to the remote tracking branch. As 'git worktree add' currently just dies in this situation, there are no backwards compatibility worries when introducing this feature. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.

[PATCH v6 3/6] worktree: add --[no-]track option to the add subcommand

branch'. We already respect branch.autoSetupMerge, as 'git worktree' just calls 'git branch' internally. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 6 + builtin/worktree.c | 8 +++ t/t2025-worktree-add.sh

[PATCH v6 0/6] make git worktree add dwim more

_options(worktree_usage, options); Thomas Gummerer (6): checkout: factor out functions to new lib file worktree: add can be created from any commit-ish worktree: add --[no-]track option to the add subcommand worktree: make add dwim worktree: add --guess-remote flag to add subcommand a

[PATCH v6 1/6] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make git worktree add dwim more. While there add some docs to the function. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Ma

Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] add worktree.guessRemote config option

On 11/27, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > +worktree.guessRemote:: > > + With `add`, if no branch argument, and neither of `-b` nor > > + `-B` nor `--detach` are given, the command defaults to > >

Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] worktree: add --guess-remote flag to add subcommand

On 11/27, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Currently 'git worktree add ' creates a new branch named after the > > basename of the , that matches the HEAD of whichever worktree we > > were on when calling "git wor

[PATCH v1 1/2] t/README: remove mention of adding copyright notices

We generally no longer include copyright notices in new test scripts. However t/README still mentions it as something to include at the top of every new script. Remove that mention as it's outdated. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- I read through some parts of t/

[PATCH v1 2/2] t/README: document test_cmp_rev

test_cmp_rev is a useful function that's used in quite a few test scripts. It is however not documented in t/README. Document it. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- t/README | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/README b/t/README index 4485

[PATCH v5 5/6] worktree: add --guess-remote flag to add subcommand

i.e. check if the new branch name uniquely matches the branch name of a remote-tracking branch, and if so check out that branch and set the upstream to the remote-tracking branch. Add a new --guess-remote option that enables exactly that behaviour. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme

[PATCH v5 2/6] worktree: add can be created from any commit-ish

of git worktree add might find it helpful. Reported-by: Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 20 ++-- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/Docum

[PATCH v5 1/6] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make git worktree add dwim more. While there add some docs to the function. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Ma

[PATCH v5 3/6] worktree: add --[no-]track option to the add subcommand

branch'. We already respect branch.autoSetupMerge, as 'git worktree' just calls 'git branch' internally. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 6 + builtin/worktree.c | 8 +++ t/t2025-worktree-add.sh

[PATCH v5 6/6] add worktree.guessRemote config option

-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/config.txt | 10 ++ Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 3 +++ builtin/worktree.c | 14 +- t/t2025-worktree-add.sh| 31 +++ 4 files changed, 57 insertions

[PATCH v5 4/6] worktree: make add dwim

. create a new branch from the remote tracking branch and set the upstream to the remote tracking branch. As 'git worktree add' currently just dies in this situation, there are no backwards compatibility worries when introducing this feature. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.

[PATCH v5 0/6] make git worktree add dwim more

; - test_cmp expect actual + test_cmp_rev refs/remotes/repo_a/foo refs/heads/foo + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'git worktree --no-guess-remote option overrides config' ' + test_when_finished rm -rf repo_a repo_b foo && + setup_remote_repo repo_a repo_b &am

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/26, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course that assumes that it's used directly, not in scripts, and > > that users will actually read the output of the command when they > > invoke it. Maybe these are not s

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/25, Randall S. Becker wrote: > On November 25, 2017 3:06 PM Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > >however we currently document one behaviour, which I would like to change > >(I usually have branches > >without a / in that I want to look at) we currently document one beha

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/25, Paul Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 17:50 +0000, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > This would be the output in the new version: > > > > $ git worktree add ../bla > > Branch 'bla' set up to track remote branch 'bla' from 'origin'. > >

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Currently 'git worktree add ' creates a new branch named after the > > basename of the , that matches the HEAD of whichever worktree we > > were on when calling "git worktre

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] worktree: add --[no-]track option to the add subcommand

On 11/24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > diff --git a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh > > index b5c47ac602..53042ce565 100755 > > --- a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh > > +++ b/t/t2025-w

Re: [PATCH] checkout: include the checkout.h header file

On 11/24, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones > --- > > Hi Thomas, > > If you need to re-roll your 'tg/worktree-create-tracking' branch, could > you please squash this into the relevant patch (commit 6736ae9593, > "checkout: factor out functions to

[PATCH v4 0/4] make git worktree add dwim more

add sets up tracking' ' - test_when_finished rm -rf repo_a && - test_when_finished rm -rf repo_b && - test_when_finished rm -rf foo && - git init repo_a && - ( - cd repo_a && - test_commit a_master &

[PATCH v4 2/4] worktree: add --[no-]track option to the add subcommand

branch'. We already respect branch.autoSetupMerge, as 'git worktree' just calls 'git branch' internally. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 6 + builtin/worktree.c | 8 ++ t/t2025-worktree-add.sh

[PATCH v4 1/4] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make git worktree add dwim more. While there add some docs to the function. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Ma

[PATCH v4 3/4] worktree: make add dwim

, i.e. create a new branch from the remote tracking branch and set the upstream to the remote tracking branch. As 'git worktree add' currently just dies in this situation, there are no backwards compatibility worries when introducing this feature. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.

[PATCH v4 4/4] worktree: make add dwim

es the new behaviour, and keeps the old behaviour of creating a new branch from the head of the current worktree. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 14 -- builtin/worktree.c | 7 +++ t/t2025-worktree-ad

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/22, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I didn't consider that, I think you are right, and the flag should > > apply in that case as well. I think at that point we may as well pass > > this flag through to the 'git bran

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/19, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> +To disable the behaviour of trying to m

Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/19, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Currently 'git worktree add ', errors out when 'branch' > > is not a local branch. It has no additional dwim'ing features that one > > might expect.

[PATCH v3 2/3] worktree: make add dwim

, i.e. create a new branch from the remote tracking branch and set the upstream to the remote tracking branch. As 'git worktree add' currently just dies in this situation, there are no backwards compatibility worries when introducing this feature. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.

[PATCH v3 1/3] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make git worktree add dwim more. While there add some docs to the function. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Ma

[PATCH v3 0/3] make git worktree add dwim more

tream/*" && git fetch --all && + test_must_fail git worktree add -b foo ../foo foo && + test_must_fail git worktree add --detach ../foo foo && git worktree add ../foo foo ) &&

[PATCH v3 3/3] worktree: make add dwim

es the new behaviour, and keeps the old behaviour of creating a new branch from the head of the current worktree. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 15 --- builtin/worktree.c | 9 +++ t/t2025-worktree-ad

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/18, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > Currently 'git worktree add ', errors out when 'branch' > is not a local branch. It has no additional dwim'ing features that one > might expect. > > Make it behave more like 'git checkout ' when the branch doesn't > exist locally, but a remo

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/15, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > On 11/14, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> > > wrote: > > > For my own edification... > > > [...] > > > git worktree add ../topic > > > >

[PATCH v2 2/3] worktree: make add dwim

, i.e. create a new branch from the remote tracking branch and set the upstream to the remote tracking branch. As 'git worktree add' currently just dies in this situation, there are no backwards compatibility worries when introducing this feature. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.

[PATCH v2 1/3] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make git worktree add dwim more. While there add some docs to the function. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- The previous

[PATCH v2 3/3] worktree: make add dwim

es the new behaviour, and keeps the old behaviour of creating a new branch from the head of the current worktree. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- I went back and forth between hiding this behing a flag, and making it default and having a flag for getting the old behaviour b

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/14, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Eric Sunshine > wrote: > > For my own edification... > > [...] > > git worktree add ../topic > > > > * Correctly errors out, refusing to create a new branch named "topic", > > if "topic" is already a

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/14, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> If so, as long as the new DWIM kicks in ONLY when "topic" does not > >> exist, I suspect that

Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

On 11/13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In > > particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make > > git worktree add dwim

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] worktree: make add dwim

On 11/13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I'm a bit torn about hiding his behind an additional flag in git > > worktree add or not. I would like to have the feature without the > > additional flag, but it might break

Re: [PATCH 2/2] stash: implement builtin stash helper

On 11/10, Joel Teichroeb wrote: > Start moving stash functions over to builtin c code and call > them in the shell script, instead of converting it all at > once. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Teichroeb > --- Thanks for working on this! I like the approach of converting this one

[PATCH v1 2/2] worktree: make add dwim

ly matches the branch name of a remote tracking branch, and if so check out that branch, and set the upstream to the remote tracking branch. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- I'm a bit torn about hiding his behind an additional flag in git worktree add or not. I wo

[PATCH v1 1/2] checkout: factor out functions to new lib file

Factor the functions out, so they can be re-used from other places. In particular these functions will be re-used in builtin/worktree.c to make git worktree add dwim more. While there add a description to the function. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- I'm no

Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ref_transaction_update(): die on disallowed flags

On 11/07, Martin Ågren wrote: > On 5 November 2017 at 09:42, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > Callers shouldn't be passing disallowed flags into > > `ref_transaction_update()`. So instead of masking them off, treat it > > as a bug if any are set. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael

Git Open Source Weekend London 11th/12th November

Hi, Bloomberg is hosting an Open Source Weekend in London on the 11th & 12th November 2017 to contribute to the Git project. We have also confirmed that Peff will be amongst the mentors on hand to guide attendees through their efforts! Some of you may notice that we tried to organize this

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2017, #05; Tue, 24)

On 10/26, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > On 24/10/17 06:28, Junio C Hamano wrote: > [snip]> > > * tg/deprecate-stash-save (2017-10-23) 3 commits > > - stash: remove now superfluos help for "stash push" > > - mark git stash push deprecated in the man page > > - replace git stash save with git

[PATCH v3 2/3] mark git stash push deprecated in the man page

it to a separate section, stating that it is deprecated. Helped-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpj...@crashcourse.ca> Helped-by: Jeff King <p...@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-stash.txt | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deleti

[PATCH v3 3/3] stash: remove now superfluos help for "stash push"

nterface, and we don't try to guess what the users wanted in the other cases. Because this way of passing pathspecs is quite common in other git commands, and we don't provide any extra help there, do the same in the error message for 'git stash push'. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t

[PATCH v3 0/3] deprecate git stash save

ion for 'stash push': \$option" usage ;; *) Thomas Gummerer (3): replace git stash save with git stash push in the documentation mark git stash push deprecated in the man page stash: remove now superfluos help for "stash push&quo

[PATCH v3 1/3] replace git stash save with git stash push in the documentation

out in the future. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-stash.txt| 12 ++-- Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 2 +- Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +- git-stash.sh | 10 +- 4 files changed, 13 insertions(

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mark git stash push deprecated in the man page

On 10/21, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:33:04PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > 'git stash push' fixes a historical wart in the interface of 'git stash > > save'. As 'git stash push' has all functionality of 'git stash save', > > with a nicer, more c

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] replace git stash save with git stash push in the documentation

On 10/21, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:33:03PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh > > index 8b2ce9afda..16919277ba 100755 > > --- a/git-stash.sh > > +++ b/git-stash.sh > &

[PATCH v2 2/2] mark git stash push deprecated in the man page

it to a separate section, stating that it is deprecated. Helped-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpj...@crashcourse.ca> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-stash.txt | 7 --- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-stash.txt b/D

[PATCH v2 1/2] replace git stash save with git stash push in the documentation

out in the future. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-stash.txt| 12 ++-- Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 2 +- Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +- git-stash.sh | 10 +- 4 files changed, 13 insertions(

Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page

On 10/17, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote > > > it from being in the synopsis entirely? > > > > I saw that as a next

Re: [RFC] deprecate git stash save? (was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] http-push: fix construction of hex value from path)

On 10/17, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:00:49PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > Since you were asking :) With the introduction of 'git stash push', > > my hope was always that we could eventually get rid of 'git stash > > save' and only k

Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page

On 10/17, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:10:29PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > Because 'stash push' and 'stash save' are so closely related they share one > > section in the man page. Currently 'stash save' comes first, as that > > was the

Re: slight addition to t.gummerer's proposed "git stash" patch

On 10/11, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > On 10/11, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > was perusing thomas gummerer's proposed "git stash" patch here: > > > > > > https://www.spinics.net/

Re: [RFC] deprecate git stash save?

On 10/12, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> git stash push is the newer interface for creating a stash. While we > >> are still keeping git s

Re: Fwd: how can I conform if I succeed in sending patch to mailing list

On 10/12, 小川恭史 wrote: > Hello, I found a mistake in documents, fixed it, and send patch to mailing > list. > > Sending patches by 'git send-email' with Gmail smtp seemed to be > successful because CC included my email address and I received it. > However, I never received email from mailing

Re: slight addition to t.gummerer's proposed "git stash" patch

On 10/11, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > was perusing thomas gummerer's proposed "git stash" patch here: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg313993.html > > and i'd make one more change -- i'd separate the OPTIONS entries for > "git stash push" and "git stash save" so they don't end up

Re: [PATCH 1/1] git-stash.txt: correct "git stash" behavior with no arguments

On 10/11, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > On 10/12, Takahito Ogawa wrote: > > "git stash" behavior without any arguments was changed in > > 1ada5020b ("stash: use stash_push for no verb form", 2017-02-28). > > This is equivalent to "git stas

Re: [PATCH 1/1] git-stash.txt: correct "git stash" behavior with no arguments

s can still mention 'git stash save'. For what it's worth this is Reviewed-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Takahito Ogawa <aiueogawa...@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/git-stash.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) &

[PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page

the order to give the newer interface for creating a stash the more prominent position. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-stash.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-stash.txt b/Documentation/git-sta

[RFC] deprecate git stash save? (was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] http-push: fix construction of hex value from path)

ing a stash. While we are still keeping git stash save around for the time being, it's better to point new users of git stash to the more modern (and more feature rich) interface, instead of teaching them the older version that we might want to phase out in the future. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer

Re: [PATCH 3/3] sub-process: allocate argv on the heap

On 10/04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > > > Am 03.10.2017 um 21:57 schrieb Thomas Gummerer: > >> diff --git a/sub-process.c b/sub-process.c > >> index 6dde5062be..4680af8193 100644 > >> --- a/sub-process.c > &

Re: playing with MSan, was Re: [PATCH 0/3] fixes for running the test suite with --valgrind

On 10/04, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:41:54PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > I think using SANITIZE=memory would catch these, but it needs some > > suppressions tuning. The weird "zlib reads uninitialized memory" error > > is a problem (valgrind sees this, too, but we have

Re: [PATCH 1/3] path.c: fix uninitialized memory access

==4423==by 0x26C181: check_push_refs (remote.c:1409) > ==4423==by 0x2ABB4D: transport_push (transport.c:870) > ==4423==by 0x186703: push_with_options (push.c:332) > ==4423==by 0x18746D: do_push (push.c:409) > ==4423==by 0x18746D: cmd_push (push.c:566) > ==4423=

[PATCH 3/3] sub-process: allocate argv on the heap

or struct child_process, so it should be fine to just let the memory be free'd when the process terminates. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- sub-process.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/sub-process.c b/sub-process.c index 6dde506

[PATCH 0/3] fixes for running the test suite with --valgrind

by themselves as well, but since they work toward the same goal, and a cover letter would explain where these are coming from I decided to make them into a patch series. Thomas Gummerer (3): path.c: fix uninitialized memory access http-push: fix construction of hex value from path sub-process: allocate

[PATCH 1/3] path.c: fix uninitialized memory access

) ==4423==by 0x11973E: main (git.c:698) ==4423== Avoid this by checking passing in the length of the string in the char array, and checking that we never run over it. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- path.c | 19 ++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions

[PATCH 2/3] http-push: fix construction of hex value from path

riable, so the first two bytes are left untouched by the memcpy call, and the last two bytes are correctly initialized. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- http-push.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/http-push.c b/http-push.c index e4c9

Re: git add -p stops working when setting color.ui = always

Hi, On 10/02, Tsvi Mostovicz wrote: > Hi, > > When setting "color.ui = always" in the last few versions (not sure > exactly when this started, but definitely exists in 2.14.1 and > 2.14.2), git add -p stops working as expected. Instead of prompting > the user, it skips through the prompts and

Re: "man git-stash" explanation of "--include-untracked" and "--all" seems ambiguous

On 09/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > from the man page: > > "If the --include-untracked option is used, all untracked files are > also stashed and then cleaned up with git clean, leaving the working > directory in a very clean state. If the --all option is used instead >

Re: [RFC v2] refs: strip out not allowed flags from ref_transaction_update

On 09/21, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 09/13/2017 12:59 AM, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > Callers are only allowed to pass certain flags into > > ref_transaction_update, other flags are internal to it. To prevent > > mistakes from the callers, strip the internal only flags out

[RFC v2] refs: strip out not allowed flags from ref_transaction_update

, and make the interface safer for its users by stripping the internal flags out. Suggested-by: Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- > This might be a nice change to have anyway, to isolate > `ref_transaction_updat

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2017, #02; Mon, 11)

On 09/11, Kevin Willford wrote: > > > > * kw/write-index-reduce-alloc (2017-09-08) 2 commits > > - read-cache: fix index corruption with index v4 > > - Add t/helper/test-write-cache to .gitignore > > > > Expecting a reroll. > > cf. >

Re: [PATCH] refs: make sure we never pass NULL to hashcpy

On 09/07, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> gcc on arch linux (version 7.1.1) warns that a NULL argument is passed &g

[PATCH v2] read-cache: fix index corruption with index v4

cally broke). Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- > Will send an updated patch in a bit. In a bit was a lie, I didn't get to it anymore yesterday, but here it is :) read-cache.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/read-cache

Re: [PATCH] refs: make sure we never pass NULL to hashcpy

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> writes: > >> gcc on arch linux (version 7.1.1) warns that a NULL argument is passed >> as the second parameter of memcpy. >> >> I

Re: [PATCH] read-cache: fix index corruption with index v4

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Kevin Willford <kewi...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> From: Thomas Gummerer [mailto:t.gumme...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 4:58 PM [..] >> I unfortunately didn't have more time to dig so >> >> > As ce->nam

[PATCH] read-cache: fix index corruption with index v4

T_INDEX_VERSION = 4 in config.mak and running the test suite (t1700 specifically broke). Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- I unfortunately didn't have more time to dig so > As ce->name is however not nul terminated just comes from my memory and from the patch below

[PATCH] refs: make sure we never pass NULL to hashcpy

the compiler realize that no NULL parameter is passed as second argument to hashcpy, add asserts that this is indeed the case. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> --- This is based on top of ma/ts-cleanups, as that fixes another compiler warning with gcc 7.1.1. refs.c | 8 +

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >