Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On 04.06.16 18:24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Can we have a final submission to be queued? Yes Thanks for the improvements and the discussions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 04:51:28PM +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > On 2016-06-04 07.14, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Mike Hommey writes: > >> > >>> In fact, the parser doesn't even reject the one that is

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

Mike Hommey writes: > From my POV, the desired outcome from this patch series is that there is > no change of behavior, and Torsten's fix makes > git://[example.com:123]:/path/to/repo urls handled the same before and > after the patch series. OK. I somehow suspect nobody

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On 2016-06-04 07.14, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Mike Hommey writes: >> >>> In fact, the parser doesn't even reject the one that is considered >>> invalid (the first). >> >> My question was what the desired behaviour

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > > In fact, the parser doesn't even reject the one that is considered > > invalid (the first). > > My question was what the desired behaviour is, and if your "fix" > gives us that desired

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

Mike Hommey writes: > In fact, the parser doesn't even reject the one that is considered > invalid (the first). My question was what the desired behaviour is, and if your "fix" gives us that desired outcome. > (Also, the discussion back then was about >

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:59:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > > > There where 2 comments in the review. > > The most important thing is that now > > git://[example.com:123]/path/to/repo is valid, but it shouldn't. > > This patch fixes it: > > > >

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > There where 2 comments in the review. > The most important thing is that now > git://[example.com:123]/path/to/repo is valid, but it shouldn't. > This patch fixes it: > > @@ -673,7 +669,7 @@ static enum protocol parse_connect_url(const char >

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On 06/03/2016 01:13 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:52:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: * mh/connect (2016-06-01) 9 commits - connect: move ssh command line preparation to a separate function - connect: actively reject git:// urls with a user part - connect: change the

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:52:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * mh/connect (2016-06-01) 9 commits > - connect: move ssh command line preparation to a separate function > - connect: actively reject git:// urls with a user part > - connect: change the --diag-url output to separate user and

What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #01; Thu, 2)

Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them. 2.9-rc2 is scheduled for early