Junio C Hamano wrote:
I have largedir I want to get rid of, but there is a directory
I want to save, largedir/precious, in it, so I do
cp -R largedir/precious precious
and then run 'rm -rf largedir' in another terminal in parallel.
I would argue that there is something
On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:25:55 +, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
I have largedir I want to get rid of, but there is a directory
I want to save, largedir/precious, in it, so I do
cp -R largedir/precious precious
and then run 'rm -rf largedir' in
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
I would argue that there is something to fix, but that fix involves
making the cp a purely atomic operation which is super-complicated,
and totally not worth it. Would you _not_ like the above example to
work?
No. I do not think I like the
On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:45:34 +, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...
Even with 'mv', between the time the main in mv starts and the
process finally issues rename(2) on the directory, you can start
running what competes and interferes with it in another terminal,
so it does not fundamentally change
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Why should I lie in the patch? The terminal flipping was a very big
itch I had, and the patch fixes exactly that issue. Showing the real
branch name was an unintended side-effect.
I just said early and showed a nice end-user example in which
Junio C Hamano wrote:
The patch may have been done by a wrong motivation, in that it does
not fundamentally fix the itch. The particular itch is not
something we are going to promise to the end users, ever, anyway.
Just out of curiosity, is it possible to write a correct fix at all?
Even if
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
The patch may have been done by a wrong motivation, in that it does
not fundamentally fix the itch. The particular itch is not
something we are going to promise to the end users, ever, anyway.
Just out of curiosity, is
There's still a lot to think about.
[3/3] is the big itch: [1/2] and [2/2] are just setup patches.
Ramkumar Ramachandra (3):
push: factor out the detached HEAD error message
push: fail early with detached HEAD and current
push: don't push the volatile HEAD with current
builtin/push.c |
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
There's still a lot to think about.
Is there? I do not think volatile is particularly a good
description for this, but showing what is pushed as a concrete
branch name feels like a good improvement to me, at least in
principle.
I haven't picked
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Is there? I do not think volatile is particularly a good
description for this, but showing what is pushed as a concrete
branch name feels like a good improvement to me, at least in
principle.
Okay. I used volatile, because push does not lock HEAD when the
operation
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Is there? I do not think volatile is particularly a good
description for this, but showing what is pushed as a concrete
branch name feels like a good improvement to me, at least in
principle.
Okay. I used volatile,
11 matches
Mail list logo
