On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 01/02/2017 05:19 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 12:36:11PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
>>> But how likely is it to end up with differing binaries running on the
>>> exact same repository
On 01/02/2017 05:19 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 12:36:11PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> But how likely is it to end up with differing binaries running on the
>> exact same repository concurrently? Basically, I am trying to see
>> whether or not we could accidentally end up
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 12:36:11PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> But how likely is it to end up with differing binaries running on the
> exact same repository concurrently? Basically, I am trying to see
> whether or not we could accidentally end up causing problems by trying
> to race with other
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Jacob Keller"
>> I do have one comment regarding this series. Is it ever possible for
>> an older version of git to be running a process while a new version of
>> git which cleans up dirs
From: "Jacob Keller"
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 9:24 AM
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King writes:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
This is a re-roll of an old
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>>
This is a re-roll of an
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>
>>> This is a re-roll of an old patch series. v1 [1] got some feedback,
>>> which I think was all addressed in v2
Jeff King writes:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> This is a re-roll of an old patch series. v1 [1] got some feedback,
>> which I think was all addressed in v2 [2]. But it seems that v2 fell
>> on the floor, and I didn't bother following up
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> This is a re-roll of an old patch series. v1 [1] got some feedback,
> which I think was all addressed in v2 [2]. But it seems that v2 fell
> on the floor, and I didn't bother following up because it was in the
> same area of code
This is a re-roll of an old patch series. v1 [1] got some feedback,
which I think was all addressed in v2 [2]. But it seems that v2 fell
on the floor, and I didn't bother following up because it was in the
same area of code that was undergoing heavy changes due to the
pluggable reference backend
10 matches
Mail list logo