On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:30:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I didn't see the result of your wrangling in pu, but I will keep an eye
out to double-check it (unless you did not finish, in which case I am
happy to do the wrangling myself).
Here is what is on top of the revert that has
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:40:03PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Commit c334b87b30c1464a1ab563fe1fb8de5eaf0e5bac caused a reversion in
git-cat-file --batch.
With an older version:
joey@gnu:~/tmp/rrrgit cat-file --batch
:file name
e69de29bb2d1d6434b8b29ae775ad8c2e48c5391 blob 0
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:54:02AM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
We need to revert that commit before the release. It can either be
replaced with:
1. A --split (or similar) option to use the behavior only when
desired.
2. Enabling splitting only when %(rest) is used in the output
Jeff King wrote:
By the way, Joey, I am not sure how safe git cat-file --batch-check is
for arbitrary filenames. In particular, I don't know how it would react
to a filename with an embedded newline (and I do not think it will undo
quoting). Certainly that does not excuse this regression; even
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Joey Hess j...@kitenet.net wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
By the way, Joey, I am not sure how safe git cat-file --batch-check is
for arbitrary filenames. In particular, I don't know how it would react
to a filename with an embedded newline (and I do not think it will
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
We need to revert that commit before the release. It can either be
replaced with:
1. A --split (or similar) option to use the behavior only when
desired.
2. Enabling splitting only when %(rest) is used in the output format.
And I suppose it is too
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:54:02AM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
We need to revert that commit before the release. It can either be
replaced with:
1. A --split (or similar) option to use the behavior only when
desired.
2. Enabling splitting only when
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 09:41:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Of the two, I think the latter is more sensible; the former is
unnecessarily placing the burden on the user to match --split with
their use of %(rest). The second is pointless without the first.
A patch to implement (2) is
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 09:41:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Of the two, I think the latter is more sensible; the former is
unnecessarily placing the burden on the user to match --split with
their use of %(rest). The second is pointless without the
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Here is what is on top of the revert that has been pushed out on
'pu'.
For what it's worth,
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
[...]
To remain backwards compatible, we cannot split on whitespace by
default, hence we will ship 1.8.4 with the commit
10 matches
Mail list logo
