On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:54:49 +0200
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
Yann Dirson dir...@bertin.fr writes:
In 1.7.10.3, git rebase -i :/Merge will complain with:
fatal: Needed a single revision
invalid upstream :/Merge
... whereas git rev-parse :/Merge has no problem
Yann Dirson wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:54:49 +0200
...
BTW, git-rebase.sh seems to be quite inconsistent on the use of $()
vs. ``, not to mention the clear preference stated in
CodingGuidelines.
There are still quite a few more places in *.sh where `cmd`is used instead
of $(cmd):
On 09/09/2012 11:40 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 8
string-list.c | 17 +
string-list.h
On 09/09/2012 11:45 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 4
string-list.c | 17 +
string-list.h
On 09/09/2012 11:54 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
[...]
diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt
b/Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt
index 9206f8f..291ac4c 100644
--- a/Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt
+++
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 08:06:12PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org wrote:
--- a/builtin/add.c
+++ b/builtin/add.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static int add_files(struct dir_struct *dir, int flags)
fprintf(stderr,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:25:25PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
+static void output_exclude(const char *path, struct exclude *exclude)
+{
+ char *type =
On 09/10/2012 07:47 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
... Consider something like
struct string_list *split_file_into_words(FILE *f)
{
char buf[1024];
struct string_list *list = new string list;
list-strdup_strings =
Looks fine to me. Thanks!
Michael
On 09/09/2012 05:42 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Only the first half of the test works only on POSIX, the second half
passes on Windows as well.
A later test real path removes other extra slashes looks very similar,
but it does not make sense to split it in
gits...@pobox.com wrote on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:35 -0700:
Pete Wyckoff p...@padd.com writes:
Option --silent, --quiet or -s to make prevents
echoing of commands as they are executed. However, there
are some explicit echo commands in the Makefile and in
the two GIT-VERSION-GEN scripts
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org wrote:
fprintf(stderr, %s\n, dir-ignored[i]-name);
- fprintf(stderr, _(Use -f if you really want to add
them.\n));
+ fprintf(stderr, _(Use -f if you really want to add
Just to close the loop on this thread, it did turn out to be a
permission problem in our case. It was difficult to track down because
it was only a problem on one server in the cluster. Each server had a
system git config file at /usr/local/etc/gitconfig. This was a symlink
pointing to a single
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 03:44:54PM +0100, David Gould wrote:
static void clear_child_for_cleanup(pid_t pid)
{
struct child_to_clean **last, *p;
last = children_to_clean;
for (p = children_to_clean; p; p = p-next) {
if (p-pid == pid) {
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 03:44:54PM +0100, David Gould wrote:
You want something like:
for (... {
if (... {
...
}
last = p-next;
}
or (probably clearer, but I haven't read your coding style
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 09:40:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The built-in binary attribute macro expands to -diff -text, so
that textual diff is not produced, and the contents will not go
through any CR/LF conversion ever. During a merge, it should also
choose the binary low-level merge
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:58:40PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
for (... {
if (... {
...
}
last = p-next;
}
[...]
I feel like bikeshedding a bit today!
I tend to either prefer either the latter or something like this:
while (p) {
...
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 09:20:48PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Saturday 2012-09-08 20:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
diff --git a/daemon.c b/daemon.c
index 4602b46..eaf08c2 100644
--- a/daemon.c
+++ b/daemon.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#include stdbool.h
#include cache.h
#include
Jeff King wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 09:20:48PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Saturday 2012-09-08 20:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
diff --git a/daemon.c b/daemon.c
index 4602b46..eaf08c2 100644
--- a/daemon.c
+++ b/daemon.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#include stdbool.h
#include cache.h
#include
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
OK, so the bottom line would be to have two versions of the function.
One takes a (const char *) and *requires* strdup_strings to be set on
its input list:
int string_list_split(struct string_list *list, const char *string,
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 12:24:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Having said all that, I am not sure if the fixing is really the
right approach to begin with. Contrast these two:
$ git blame MakeFILE
$ git blame HEAD -- MakeFILE
The latter, regardless of core.ignorecase, should
Occasionally, while I'm in the middle of an interactive rebase, I'd change my
mind about the todo list and want to modify it. This means manually digging
out the todo file from the rebase directory, and invoking the editor. So I
thought it might be convenient to have an edit action that simply
This allows users to edit the todo list while they're in the middle of
an interactive rebase.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 6 ++
git-rebase.sh | 14 ++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:49:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
-- 8 --
gitcli: contrast wildcard given to shell and to git
People who are not used to working with shell may intellectually
understand how the command line argument is massaged by the shell
but still have a hard time
Hi,
Whenever I do a git push origin of a new branch I see:
Auto packing the repository for optimum performance.
/usr/local/libexec/git-core/git-sh-setup: line 241: uname: command not found
/usr/local/libexec/git-core/git-repack: line 56: rm: command not found
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Another idea: in string-list.h, one could name parameters sorted_list
when they must be sorted as a precondition of the function.
That sounds like a very sensible thing to do.
But before getting too hung up on finery, the effort might be better
Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com writes:
This allows users to edit the todo list while they're in the middle of
an interactive rebase.
I like the idea.
+edit)
+ git_sequence_editor $todo ||
+die_abort Could not execute editor
+
+ exit
+ ;;
Indent with space. Please, use tabs
Rob Marshall rob.marshal...@gmail.com writes:
If I do a 'git repack' it works fine, so are these
messages coming from the remote server?
I guess so, and your remote server has a restricted environment (chroot
or so) with very few commands allowed, which prevents shell-scripts from
executing
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 04:10:59PM +0200, Robin Stocker wrote:
Maybe the solution is to detect if the original commit message
ends with a trailer and in that case keep the existing behavior
of not inserting a blank line?
Yeah, that sounds like a good change from this makes the
Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes:
Administrivia. Please never deflect direct responses to you with
Mail-Followup-To header. I told my mailer to follow-up so that I
could give you advice in response, while adding others in the
discussion to Cc so that they do not have to repeat what I
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:24:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
While we're on the subject, it seems to me that documenting APIs like
these in separate files under Documentation/technical rather than in the
header files themselves
- makes the documentation for a particular function
Am 09.09.2012 23:58, schrieb Marcus Karlsson:
Make git-grep optionally omit the parts of the line before and after the
match.
Signed-off-by: Marcus Karlsson m...@acc.umu.se
---
Documentation/git-grep.txt | 8 +++-
builtin/grep.c | 2 ++
grep.c | 7 +--
Hi Everyone,
I'm using Gitweb (Based on Git 1.7.9 on RHEL 5.8).
I was poking around and tried a GET Request (REQ) with some SQL
statements as a search query and noticed a 500. Can i just confirm
with anyone here that the error message I'm seeing in the Response
(RESP) is basically saying that
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Matthieu Moy
matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote:
Indent with space. Please, use tabs (same below).
Ah, thanks. Good catch.
Just edit may be a bit misleading, as we already have the edit
action inside the todolist. I'd call this --edit-list to avoid
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:46:45PM -0400, Andrew Wong wrote:
Just edit may be a bit misleading, as we already have the edit
action inside the todolist. I'd call this --edit-list to avoid
ambiguity.
I thought that might be a bit confusing too. --edit-list doesn't
seem informative about
OK, thanks. I'll check with the guy who set up the server.
Rob
On 9/10/12 12:26 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Rob Marshall rob.marshal...@gmail.com writes:
If I do a 'git repack' it works fine, so are these
messages coming from the remote server?
I guess so, and your remote server has a
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
When writing a script that is expected to handle random user-input, it is
a good practice to make it explicit which arguments are which by placing
disambiguating `--` at appropriate places.
Look at the paragraph below your addition. It is typographically
Joseph Leong josephcle...@gmail.com writes:
[RESP]
500 - Internal Server Error
Unmatched ( in regex; marked by lt;-- HERE in m/( lt;-- HERE select
1234,/ at /var/www/git/gitweb.cgi line 4845.
Gitweb is feeding your input as a perl regex, which is not really clean
but shouldn't really harm
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Does it make sense to join that final paragraph into what is now the
third bullet, and then add your new text (the fourth bullet) after?
I am not sure. After re-reading it, I do not think the fileglob
discussion belongs to
Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:38:58PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
More importantly, though, is it actually portable? I thought it was
added in C99, and we try to stick to C89 to support older compilers
and systems. My copy of C99 is vague (it says only that the bool
macro was
Joseph Leong josephcle...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Everyone,
I'm using Gitweb (Based on Git 1.7.9 on RHEL 5.8).
I was poking around and tried a GET Request (REQ) with some SQL
statements as a search query and noticed a 500. Can i just confirm
with anyone here that the error message I'm seeing
and you earned bonus points for the details - thank you very much!
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Joseph Leong josephcle...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Everyone,
I'm using Gitweb (Based on Git 1.7.9 on RHEL 5.8).
I was poking around and tried a GET
On 09/10/2012 06:33 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:24:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
While we're on the subject, it seems to me that documenting APIs like
these in separate files under Documentation/technical rather than in the
header files themselves
- makes the
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 07:26:26PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
as are non-const array intializers, e.g.:
const char *args[] = { editor, path, NULL };
^
.../git/editor.c, line 39: error(122): expression must have a
constant
From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 7:59 PM
To: Joachim Schmitz
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] daemon: restore getpeername(0,...) use
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 07:26:26PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
as are non-const array intializers,
Am 10.09.2012 18:14, schrieb Andrew Wong:
Occasionally, while I'm in the middle of an interactive rebase, I'd change my
mind about the todo list and want to modify it. This means manually digging
out the todo file from the rebase directory, and invoking the editor. So I
thought it might be
Am 10.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Jeff King:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:46:45PM -0400, Andrew Wong wrote:
Just edit may be a bit misleading, as we already have the edit
action inside the todolist. I'd call this --edit-list to avoid
ambiguity.
I thought that might be a bit confusing too.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:36:43PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
[1] It does preclude using --edit to make a note about a later commit
while you are in the middle of resolving a conflict or something.
You'd have to do it at the end. I don't know if anybody actually
cares about
I'm renaming this thread so that the bikeshedding can get over ASAP.
On 09/10/2012 07:48 PM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
On 09/10/2012 06:33 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:24:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Also, better
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:36:43PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
[1] It does preclude using --edit to make a note about a later commit
while you are in the middle of resolving a conflict or something.
You'd have to do it
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I would argue the opposite; if it is about a specific point, then put it
with the point. Otherwise, you are asking the reader to remember back to
an earlier point (that they may not even have read; in reference
documentation, the point of a list is often to let
The paragraph to encourage use of -- in scripts belongs to the
bullet point that describes the behaviour for a command line without
the explicit -- disambiguation, not a supporting explanation for
the entire bulletted list.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
---
People who are not used to working with shell may intellectually
understand how the command line argument is massaged by the shell
but still have a hard time visualizing the difference between
letting the shell expand fileglobs and having Git see the fileglob
to use as a pathspec.
Signed-off-by:
Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:36:43PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
[1] It does preclude using --edit to make a note about a later commit
while you are in the middle of resolving a
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:58:40PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
for (... {
if (... {
...
}
last = p-next;
}
[...]
I feel like bikeshedding a bit today!
I tend to either prefer either the latter or something like
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:00:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
And to conclude my bikeshedding for the day: Shouldn't last ideally
be called something like prev instead? It's the previously visited
element, not the last element in the list.
It is the last element visited (just as last
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:35:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I would argue the opposite; if it is about a specific point, then put it
with the point. Otherwise, you are asking the reader to remember back to
an earlier point (that they may not even have
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:00:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
And to conclude my bikeshedding for the day: Shouldn't last ideally
be called something like prev instead? It's the previously visited
element, not the last element in the list.
It is the
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org wrote:
Did you think about what can go wrong? For example, starting with this
todo sheet:
exec false
pick 1234567
Ah, that's definitely a problem.
I was going to say we probably just to check the done file, same as
the one we
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:27:07PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
I think it is a mistake to set -std=c89 (or whatever similar option your
compiler supports). Like I said, we are not interested in being strictly
C89-compliant. We are interested in working on real-world systems.
If your
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:23:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Really? Would git log --expand master be useful?
I'm clearly not an expert on this, but isn't that what
git
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
If the proposal were instead to add a certain type of pathspec that is
case-insensitive[2], that would make much more sense to me. It is not
violating git's case-sensitivity because it is purely a _query_ issue.
And it is a feature you might use whether or not
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Hmph. Isn't that what I suggested in my first email? :P
Until I read the current text I did not realize the trailing
paragraph was to apply only to point C (no -- disambiguates and
throws errors) but somehow thought it was covering both point B
(with -- you are
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
If the proposal were instead to add a certain type of pathspec that is
case-insensitive[2], that would make much more sense to me. It is not
violating git's case-sensitivity because it is
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Document some bugs in git fetch-pack:
1. If git fetch-pack is called with --all, --depth, and an
explicit existing non-tag reference to fetch, then it falsely reports
that the reference was not found, even though it was fetched
correctly.
2.
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Instead of juggling nr_heads,heads (sometimes called
nr_match,match), pass around the list of references to be sought in
a single string_list variable called sought. Future commits will
make more use of string_list functionality.
Signed-off-by:
As you mentioned, parsing n ... [month], and even ...n... (e.g.
the 3rd) as the nth day of a month is great, but in this case, I
think n ... ago is a pretty strong sign that that's not the intended
behavior.
My first thought was just to make it an error if the string ends in
ago but the date is
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Hrm... They see the contents of the todo file immediately after
they say rebase --edit-todo and the sole reason they said that
command is because they wanted to edit the todo file. Is it likely
they need a reminder?
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Instead of temporarily storing matched refs to temporary array
return_refs, simply append them to newlist as we go. This changes
the order of references in newlist to strictly sorted if --all and
--depth and named references are all specified,
Version 2 of a patch series that adds some functions to the
string_list API. This patch series applies to current master. Thanks
for Junio for lots of great feedback.
The patch series Clean up how fetch_pack() handles the heads list
v3, which requires some of the new string_list functionality,
Add a new function that appends a string to a string_list without
copying it. This can be used to pass ownership of an already-copied
string to a string_list that has strdup_strings set.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 17
Add two new functions, string_list_split() and
string_list_split_in_place(). These split a string into a string_list
on a separator character. The first makes copies of the substrings
(leaving the input string untouched) and the second splits the
original string in place, overwriting the
This function allows entries that don't match a specified criterion to
be discarded from a string_list while preserving the order of the
remaining entries.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 11 +++
string-list.c
Add a function that deletes duplicate entries from a sorted
string_list.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 9 +
string-list.c | 17 +
string-list.h
Add a function that finds the longest string from a string_list that
is a prefix of a given string.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 8
string-list.c | 20 +++
In the demo code blurb, show how to initialize the string_list using
STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP rather than memset().
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
Documentation/technical/api-string-list.txt | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
This patch series depends on the Add some string_list-related
functions series that I just submitted.
This series is a significant rewrite of v2 based on the realization
that the nr_heads,heads pair that is passed around in these
functions is
Signed-off-by: Yacine Belkadi yacine.belkad...@gmail.com
---
contrib/completion/git-completion.bash |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
index 222b804..d1f905e 100644
---
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
If the proposal were instead to add a certain type of pathspec that is
case-insensitive[2], that would make much more sense to me. It is not
violating git's
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:38:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Thanks, that helped. I got excited when I saw the icase in the
comments and thought it might already be implemented. But it looks like
it is still to be done. :)
Yeah, some are tongue-in-cheek (e.g. I do not know what
On 09/10/2012 10:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Document some bugs in git fetch-pack:
1. If git fetch-pack is called with --all, --depth, and an
explicit existing non-tag reference to fetch, then it falsely reports
that the reference was not
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:21:12PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
I'm renaming this thread so that the bikeshedding can get over ASAP.
Thanks. :)
http://tomdoc.org/
Looks much nicer to me than most doxygen I've seen. But again, it's been
a while, so maybe doxygen is nicer than I
On 09/09/2012 08:15 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 03:20:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
This patch series depends on the Add some string_list-related
functions series that I just submitted.
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
diff --git a/string-list.c b/string-list.c
index 5594b7d..f9051ec 100644
--- a/string-list.c
+++ b/string-list.c
@@ -204,3 +204,52 @@ void unsorted_string_list_delete_item(struct string_list
*list, int i, int free_
list-items[i] =
On 09/10/2012 11:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
diff --git a/string-list.c b/string-list.c
index d9810ab..5594b7d 100644
--- a/string-list.c
+++ b/string-list.c
@@ -148,13 +148,23 @@ void print_string_list(const struct string_list *p,
const
On 09/10/2012 11:56 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:21:12PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
My plate is full. If you are able to work on this, it would be awesome.
As far as I'm concerned, you are the new literate documentation czar :-)
Lucky me? :)
I was nominating
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
OK. As long as the sort order matches the order string-list
internally uses for its bisection search, it won't be a problem,
then.
The sorting is crucial but there is no bisection involved. The sorted
linked-list of references available from
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
+`string_list_split`, `string_list_split_in_place`::
+
+ Split a string into substrings on a delimiter character and
+ append the substrings to a `string_list`. If `maxsplit` is
+ non-negative, then split at most `maxsplit` times.
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
But I would think for that particular use case, you would not want to do
a per-glob prefix for that, but would rather use a command-line switch.
Yes.
Even though it is not listed as possible future semantics, one thing
that we may want to have before all others
On 09/10/2012 11:56 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:21:12PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
I'm renaming this thread so that the bikeshedding can get over ASAP.
Thanks. :)
http://tomdoc.org/
Looks much nicer to me than most doxygen I've seen. But again, it's been
a
89 matches
Mail list logo
