On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> If clients rely on output targeted at human consumption it's not
>> surprising that these clients need to be adjusted from time to time.
>> What's troubling is not the change to git-lfs, but the very un-generic
>> way
Sebastian Schuberth writes:
> If clients rely on output targeted at human consumption it's not
> surprising that these clients need to be adjusted from time to time.
> What's troubling is not the change to git-lfs, but the very un-generic
> way git-p4 is implemented.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I dropped the support for the older version to keep the code as
>> simple as possible (plus it would be cumbersome to test with an
>> outdated Git LFS version). Since it is probably a niche feature I
>> thought that
Lars Schneider writes:
>> On 19 Apr 2016, at 22:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>> From: Lars Schneider
>>>
>>> Git LFS 1.2.0 removed a line from the output of the 'git lfs pointer'
> On 19 Apr 2016, at 22:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> From: Lars Schneider
>>
>> Git LFS 1.2.0 removed a line from the output of the 'git lfs pointer'
>> command [1] which broke the parsing of this output.
larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes:
> From: Lars Schneider
>
> Git LFS 1.2.0 removed a line from the output of the 'git lfs pointer'
> command [1] which broke the parsing of this output. Adjust the parser
> to the new output and add minimum Git LFS version to the docs.
From: Lars Schneider
Git LFS 1.2.0 removed a line from the output of the 'git lfs pointer'
command [1] which broke the parsing of this output. Adjust the parser
to the new output and add minimum Git LFS version to the docs.
[1]
7 matches
Mail list logo