Re: [PATCH] A new merge algorithm, take 2

On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:23:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Fredrik Kuivinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The main changes compared to the previous version are: * Lots of clean up. * Some of the scripts have been renamed to better match the naming convention used in Git. * A new

Re: [PATCH] A new merge algorithm, take 2

Fredrik Kuivinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I didn't know you could do things like that with git-ls-files :) But yeah, it's certainly less intrusive to do it that way. It will probably simplify things a great deal too. Wouldn't '--unmerged' be the appropriate flag to use for git-ls-files in

Re: [PATCH] Spell __attribute__ correctly in cache.h.

Jason Riedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you're interested, I have a few patches in http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~ejr/gits/git.git#portable that let git compile with xlc on AIX and Sun's non-c99 cc on Solaris. I've taken a look at them. Thanks. Changes: +Replace C99 array

git-apply patches

Here is a series of patches which fix some bugs in and add some new command line options to git-apply. [PATCH 1/9] Fix git patch header processing in git-apply. [PATCH 2/9] Fix detection of files with only one line in git-apply. [PATCH 3/9] Fix processing of a patch file which modifies the same

[PATCH 1/9] Fix git patch header processing in git-apply.

Stop processing and return NULL if we encounter a '\n' character before we have two matching names in the git header. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- apply.c |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) 289e53f770e37dfe25c740788256d24c19c2e16d diff --git

[PATCH 2/9] Fix detection of files with only one line in git-apply.

A patch which added one line to an empty file or removed the only line from a one line file would be incorrectly detected as an invalid new or delete patch. Added a new test case. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- apply.c |4 ++--

[PATCH 4/9] Fix the procssing of multiple patch files with --check in git-apply.

When the --check option was used with multiple patch files which modify the same files, the patch can fail because the previously modified contents aren't written to the disk. So save the in memory patch contents across the processing of multiple patch files. Added a new test case for --check

[PATCH 5/9] New option --force-delete for git-apply.

Allow the user to force a patch that deletes a file to succeed even though the file might still contain data. Added a test case. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Documentation/git-apply.txt |8 +- apply.c | 12 -

[PATCH 6/9] New option --ignore-whitespace for git-apply.

Allow the user to force a patch to be applied even though there might be whitespace differences. Added a test case for the new option. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Documentation/git-apply.txt|7 +++- apply.c| 38

[PATCH 7/9] New option --ignore-applied for git-apply.

Allow the user to allow a patch which has some hunks (fragments) already applied to succeed. Added test case and documentation. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Documentation/git-apply.txt |6 ++ apply.c | 12 +

[PATCH 8/9] New git-apply test cases for patches with mulitple fragments.

Added a test case for patches with multiple fragments. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- t/t4109-apply-multifrag.sh | 176 1 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 t/t4109-apply-multifrag.sh

[PATCH 9/9] New git-apply test cases for scanning forwards and backwards.

Added a new test case for the scanning forwards and backwards for the correct location to apply a patch fragment. Signed-off-by: Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- t/t4110-apply-scan.sh | 101 + 1 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 0

Re: [PATCH 6/9] New option --ignore-whitespace for git-apply.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Robert Fitzsimons wrote: Allow the user to force a patch to be applied even though there might be whitespace differences. Added a test case for the new option. If you ignore whitespace, then you should probably accept patches that are whitespace corrupted in another

Re: [PATCH] Spell __attribute__ correctly in cache.h.

And Junio C Hamano writes: - +Replace C99 array initializers with code. - I presume this is to help older compilers? Yes, so it's relatively unimportant. I could work around it in my situation; I only included it because it's necessary for some Sun compilers on older Solaris

Re: [PATCH] Spell __attribute__ correctly in cache.h.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Jason Riedy wrote: I'm fine with requiring a limited C99 compiler. A pedantic compiler will reject members with a length of zero. 6.7.5.2 para1 requires a value greater than zero for a constant array size. So the code now (with [0] decls) is neither C89 nor C99.

Re: [PATCH] Spell __attribute__ correctly in cache.h.

Linus Torvalds wrote: But using array[] means that sizeof() no longer works, and then you have to use offsetof(), which is a big pain. This is not true under C99. If an array[] is the last member of a struct (which is what we are, AFAIK, talking about), then sizeof that struct is defined and

Re: [PATCH] Spell __attribute__ correctly in cache.h.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: This is not true under C99. If an array[] is the last member of a struct (which is what we are, AFAIK, talking about), then sizeof that struct is defined and gives the size of that struct as if the array's size were zero (but the struct

Re: [PATCH 6/9] New option --ignore-whitespace for git-apply.

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Robert Fitzsimons wrote: Allow the user to force a patch to be applied even though there might be whitespace differences. Added a test case for the new option. If you ignore whitespace, then you should probably accept patches that are whitespace

Re: [PATCH] git-repack-script: Add option to repack all objects

Frank Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This patch adds an option to git-repack-script to repack all objects, including both packed and unpacked. This allows a full repack of a git archive (current cogito packs from 39MB to 4.5MB, and git packs from 4.4MB to 3.8MB). Signed-off-by: Frank

Re: [PATCH 6/9] New option --ignore-whitespace for git-apply.

Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Allow the user to force a patch to be applied even though there might be whitespace differences. Added a test case for the new option. It might be worth doing fuzz in general, but treating whitespace-only fuzz specially is a good idea, since they

Re: [PATCH 3/9] Fix processing of a patch file which modifies the same file in git-apply.

Robert Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A patch file (or stdin) which modifies the same file more then once will fail to apply the patch correctly. In the worst case it will apply some of the patch and leave an invalid output file(s). I am not sure if this is solving the right problem.

Re: [PATCH 1/9] Fix git patch header processing in git-apply.

Thanks for apply patches. I have merged some of them and pushed out. I further wanted to apply the following to the proposed updates branch, but even with only the first one applied, it fails its own test, t4104-apply-complex.sh: * Fix processing of a patch file which modifies the same file in

[PATCH] zfcp: fix compilation due to rports changes

tree 6fb8ffca31af2bba66ee8303bb62c272507e571e parent 3d52acb34247816c453f94596e6c7fc4499b76dc author Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:33:53 +0400 committer Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:43:18 -0700 [PATCH] zfcp: fix compilation due to rports changes

[PATCH] zfcp: bugfix and compile fixes

tree 5b4508801e851a124f1fc1e08f8128969bb1a5d1 parent 7f84f226389fc5f47b3cb36818972e2e171607de author Heiko Carstens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:22:37 -0700 committer Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:53:48 -0700 [PATCH] zfcp: bugfix and compile fixes Bugfix (usage of