On 9/10/16, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> You would need post-checkout hook together with clean / smudge filters
> (though you could get by without smudge filter, at least in theory...).
> The `post-checkout` hook could run e.g. "git checkout -- '*.conf'"
> to force use of smudge filter, after checking
W dniu 10.09.2016 o 01:07, john smith pisze:
> On 9/10/16, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> The clean and smudge operations should look _only_ at the contents
>> they are filtering, and nothing else, and the clean/smudge filtering
>> mechanism is designed to support that use case. It is not designed
>> t
john smith writes:
> ... get it. The problem is that in the scenario presented in my last
> e-mail clean filter is run in the situation which doesn't like a
> checkin to me. Is `git checkout ' doing a *checkin*" under the
> hood so that the clean filter is called? What does actually `checkin'
On 9/10/16, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The clean and smudge operations should look _only_ at the contents
> they are filtering, and nothing else, and the clean/smudge filtering
> mechanism is designed to support that use case. It is not designed
> to do things like embedding the name of the branch t
john smith writes:
> So it seems that clean filter is only run when checking out paths but
> not when checking out branches. Is my thinking correct?
If the new branch you are going to and your current branch record
different contents for a path, that path will have to be checked out
to the work
On 9/8/16, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 06.09.2016 o 23:01, john smith pisze:
>
>> I'd prefer smudge/clean filters instead of `make' scripts etc. to
>> convert template dotfiles into something usable and back because
>> filters:
>>
>> 1. could be run automatically
>>
>> 2. do not modify files as
W dniu 06.09.2016 o 23:01, john smith pisze:
> I'd prefer smudge/clean filters instead of `make' scripts etc. to
> convert template dotfiles into something usable and back because
> filters:
>
> 1. could be run automatically
>
> 2. do not modify files as shown by `git show HEAD:' and
> therefore
john smith venit, vidit, dixit 06.09.2016 23:01:
> On 9/6/16, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
>> On 06.09.16 19:47, john smith wrote:
>>> I am looking for a way to force smudge filter to run by simulating a
>>> real life checkout. Let's say I just created a new branch and did not
>>> modify any files
On 9/6/16, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> On 06.09.16 19:47, john smith wrote:
>> I am looking for a way to force smudge filter to run by simulating a
>> real life checkout. Let's say I just created a new branch and did not
>> modify any files but want to test my new smudge filter. According to
>>
On 06.09.16 19:47, john smith wrote:
> I am looking for a way to force smudge filter to run by simulating a
> real life checkout. Let's say I just created a new branch and did not
> modify any files but want to test my new smudge filter. According to
> some answers such as
> https://stackoverflow.c
I am looking for a way to force smudge filter to run by simulating a
real life checkout. Let's say I just created a new branch and did not
modify any files but want to test my new smudge filter. According to
some answers such as
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22909620/git-smudge-clean-filter-b
11 matches
Mail list logo