On 23.02.2016 at 06:02 Jeff King wrote:
Let's wait and see how many "please don't"s we hear, perhaps, before
deciding to go 3.?
I'm guessing we won't see much either way. Even Stefan, the original
reporter, does not seem to actively be using it, but rather relaying a
report.
I _am_ actively
On 2016-02-16 at 22:27 Junio C Hamano wrote:
Three, I know the existence of the program is not more than "we
could do something like this" illustration by Linus, and its output
is in no way _designed_ to be so. We know today that it does not do
Well, then it is just really sad that the
On 2016-02-16 at 21:35 Jeff King wrote:
Yeah, I agree there isn't a great solution in git here. Using "git
merge" is definitely wrong if you don't want to touch HEAD or have a
working directory. If you _just_ care about doing the tree-level merge
without content-level merging inside blobs, you
Thank you for working on this! Let me just address two things from an
outsider's perspective:
On 2016-02-16 at 06:50, Jeff King wrote:
Yeah, maybe. There were two reasons I avoided adding a test.
One, I secretly hoped that by dragging my feet we could get consensus on
just ripping out
Addendum: Problem occurs with version 2.7.1 as well as version 1.9.1.
On 15/02/16 22:39, Stefan Frühwirth wrote:
in one specific circumstance, git-merge-tree exits with a segfault
caused by "*** Error in `git': malloc(): memory corruption (fast)":
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from
Hi,
in one specific circumstance, git-merge-tree exits with a segfault
caused by "*** Error in `git': malloc(): memory corruption (fast)":
There has to be at least one commit first (as far as I can tell it
doesn't matter what content). Then create a tree containing a file with
a leading
6 matches
Mail list logo