Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It has no point any more, all the tools check the file status on their
own, and yes, the thing should probably be removed.
How about git-rev-tree? Does anybody care?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a
Josef Weidendorfer made a good suggestion to throw in sample
hooks, disabled by default, to newly created repositories. Here
is a proposed patch. I will advance it to the master branch if
I do not hear objections, probably by the end of the week.
A template mechanism to populate
This is a call for help patch. The kernel.org folks are
talking about installing git daemon, and while the problem I am
trying to address should not matter when the daemon is spawned
from inetd, I would like to get this resolved. Help greatly
apprciated.
-jc
It appears that every
This may be controversial from the robustness standpoint, so I
am placing it in the proposed update queue first. Discussions
on the list very welcomed.
Once the alternate object pool mechanism is taught to use
$GIT_DIR/info/alt file (instead of/in addition to the
environment variable), this
Hi, Ryan Anderson wrote:
Since these emails are sent *very* fast, delivery order tends to be the
dominating factor in how they sort in your inbox, as they will all have
the same time. So that's a trifle annoying.
That's trivially fixable: just generate your own Date: header and
add a second
Hello,
sometimes I have to work in trees for which I have only read
permissions; cogito has problems then - for example:
- cg-diff
fatal: unable to create new cachefile
fatal: unable to create temp-file
It would be nice if there was at least a way to specify some TMPDIR
instead of
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone have any good scripts for taking patches in email and turning
them into git commits, preferrably while preserving the author
information?
StGIT can do this as well, via the 'stg import -m' command. You will
see it as a GIT commit (with 'git log')
- Call inflateEnd to release zlib state after use.
- After resolving delta, free base object data.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
unpack-objects.c |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
890ab530c0c0aad5c070690498d3b1254c7a30bc
diff --git
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, probably not. git-rev-list does so much more than git-rev-tree ever
did.
Does rev-list do --edges ;-)?
BTW, I have two known bugs/problems that I haven't resolved,
which is bothering me quite a bit. Yes, it is my fault (lack of
time and
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, probably not. git-rev-list does so much more than git-rev-tree ever
did.
Does rev-list do --edges ;-)?
No, but does anybody use it? It _may_ be interesting as a git-merge-base
thing, but then we
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've lost that state. Can you explain a bit mroe..
Sorry, you have not lost anything. It is my bad that this is
the first time I brought it up. I've been seeing that from time
to time when I push to either my send to master repository
from my working
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Sorry, you have not lost anything. It is my bad that this is
the first time I brought it up. I've been seeing that from time
to time when I push to either my send to master repository
from my working repository, or from the send to master
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen
anything like that, and I push all the time..
Call him Zaphod: he has two heads (master and pu). You don't. As I said in
another mail, this could be very well related to Junio's
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen
anything like that, and I push all the time..
I have been esuspecting that it happens only because I rewind
and rebase pu, which you never do. The thing is, even though
I rewind pu
IIRC, git-local-pull still doesn't work for a packed source repository,
because it doesn't include the possibility of copying a pack (or
extracting an object) if the requested object is in a pack.
I can probably fix it if anyone cares, but it's not something I use
personally, so I don't know
On Wednesday 03 August 2005 18:50, you wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen
anything like that, and I push all the time..
Call him Zaphod: he has two heads (master and pu). You don't. As I said in
another
Martin Sivak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch make possible to use alternate ssh binary or ssh helper
script. The script can be used to give additional parameters to ssh
binary (like private key, protocol version, ...).
Example script could look like this:
#!/bin/sh
ssh -1 -i
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen
anything like that, and I push all the time..
I have been esuspecting that it happens only because I rewind
and rebase pu, which you
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I started out to make the -f flag to send-file work around it, but I
never finished that, partly because it really ends up being the same thing
as git-fetch-pack in reverse, which was against the whole point of
git-send-pack. Send-pack is meant to be
On Wednesday 03 August 2005 19:37, you wrote:
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I started out to make the -f flag to send-file work around it, but I
never finished that, partly because it really ends up being the same
thing as git-fetch-pack in reverse, which was against the whole
On Wednesday 03 August 2005 19:08, you wrote:
Yes it is. To reproduce:
You do not need 2 clones.
It is enough to have one clone with a branch, and you make a commit in the
original repository.
Afterwards, pushing a new commit from the clone gives the error.
After pulling the missing commit
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen
anything like that, and I push all the time..
Call him Zaphod: he has two heads (master and pu). You don't.
Oh, but I most
This patch seems to fix the problem.
* If the original value of remote ref refers to an object we do
not have, and if the ref is one of the branches we are trying
to push, we refuse to update it.
* Otherwise, we do not attempt to use such an value when
computing what objects to put in
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
Yes it is. To reproduce:
Create a repository with 2 branches.
Make 2 clones of the 2 branches via SSH.
Make a commit on one clone and push.
Make another commit on the other clone and push = ERROR
This works perfectly fine, you just have to
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
But my example shows that the error happens even with 2 branches totally
unrelated to each other: if branch1 got a new commit, you can not push to
branch2 from another clone.
Sure you can.
git-send-pack remote branch2
and you've just
On Wednesday 03 August 2005 20:07, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Josef, could you give it a try please?
Perfect. Thanks.
Josef
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
I understand why you would want this if your ssh binary is
called something other than ssh [*1*], but I doubt the example
you gave needs this patch. Could you explain why having
something like this in your .ssh/config file is not enough?
Host foo.bar.xz
Protocol 1
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Btw, I'm not sure this is a wonderful idea. I found it useful for doing
git-whatchanged -p drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic79xx*
since I was interested in seeign if only that particular driver had had
changes. But it's hacky and pretty limited, so I
Martin Sivak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I mean, how would you setup different identities for more user
accounts on the same server (it doesn't happen often, but..)?
I do not claim the way I do is the best way, but I do that all
the time.
I just use different name to connect, by setting up the
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Wouldn't something like this work equally well?
Nope, for several reasons:
- it's _horribly_ inefficient (ie it traverses directories that it
doesn't need to)
- it shows all the changeset comments, regardless of whether they are
releant or
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
git-send-pack parent $(git-rev-parse HEAD^):master
and there's no real reason why that syntax shouldn't just work: it's
entirely logical to say I want to push out the parent of my HEAD as
'master' on the other end, and that's _exactly_ what
Well, I pushed it out, although I do agree that we should be
able to give anything get_sha()-able on the source side of the
push. Probably a revised version should have the following
semantics:
$ git-send-pack [--all] remote [ref...]
- When no ref is specified:
- with '--all', it is
Hi,
My apologies if this has already been found and reported; I'm not
tracking the list closely.
It seems that newly introduced files are not shown in gitweb.
For example, see the following commit:
fix one 'should it be static?' warning and
two 'mixing declarations and code' warnings.
Signed-off-by: Alecs King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
connect.c|3 ++-
ssh-pull.c |2 +-
tools/mailinfo.c |2 +-
3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/connect.c
I have been having lots of fun using 'git bisect' to find the commit
that broke S3 wake on my laptop. But in its last step it gives an
answer that cannot be right. I had not used git until now, so I may be
missing something obvious: Corrections will be gratefully received. I'm
using git from
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
While I have not updated the send-pack src:dst syntax, I
added a horrible hack that some people may love to see. This
removes the need to use git-rev-parse from many commands.
Yes, I think this makes sense. We had three different sha1 parsers:
36 matches
Mail list logo
