Re: [PATCH 9/9] clone: run check_everything_connected

2013-03-31 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:40:51AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: Maybe we could do it in index-pack to save some (wall) time. I haven't tried but I think it might work. The problem is to make sure the pack contains objects for all sha1 references in the pack. By that description, we don't need to

[PATCH 0/3] tests: --valgrind=tool

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
From: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch I had a quick-and-dirty edit to t/valgrind/valgrind.sh in my trees while we did the index-pack investigation. This small series is the proper way of achieving the same. Thomas Rast (3): t/README: --valgrind already implies -v tests: parameterize

[PATCH 1/3] t/README: --valgrind already implies -v

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
From: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch This was missed in 3da9365 (Tests: let --valgrind imply --verbose and --tee, 2009-02-04). Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch --- t/README | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/README b/t/README index

[PATCH 2/3] tests: parameterize --valgrind option

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
From: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch Running tests under helgrind and DRD recently proved useful in tracking down thread interaction issues. This can unfortunately not be done through GIT_VALGRIND_OPTIONS because any tool other than memcheck would complain about unknown options. Let --valgrind

[PATCH 3/3] tests --valgrind: provide a mode without --track-origins

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
From: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch With --valgrind=memcheck-fast, the tests run under memcheck but without the autodetected --track-origins. If you just run valgrind to see *if* there is any memory issue with your program, the extra information is not needed, and it comes at a roughly 30% hit

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de writes: When --verify-signatures is specified, abort the merge in case a good GPG signature from an untrusted key is encountered. [...] +test_expect_success GPG 'merge commit with untrusted signature with verification' '

[PATCH 3/4] tests: notice valgrind error in test_must_fail

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
We tell valgrind to return 126 if it notices that something is wrong, but we did not actually handle this in test_must_fail, leading to false negatives. Catch and report it. Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch --- Just noticed this issue when tracking down the failure in t7612. It

Re: More detailed error message for 403 forbidden.

2013-03-31 Thread Yi, EungJun
Maybe. But I would worry somewhat about sites which provide a useless and verbose text/plain message. Ideally an x-git-error-message would be no more than few lines, suitable for the error message of a terminal program. I would not want a site-branded Your page cannot be found. Here's a

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
On 03/31/2013 10:32 AM, Thomas Rast wrote: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de writes: When --verify-signatures is specified, abort the merge in case a good GPG signature from an untrusted key is encountered. [...] +test_expect_success GPG 'merge commit with untrusted signature with

[PATCH 0/4] check_everything_connected replacement

2013-03-31 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
My investigation in lowering connectivity check cost in git-clone [1] led me to try 'index-pack --strict' code. Without calling fsck_object(), --strict seems to be cheaper than check_everything_connected() while accomplishing the same thing (imo). The first patch is a bug fix running git-clone

[PATCH 1/4] fetch-pack: save shallow file before fetching the pack

2013-03-31 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
index-pack --strict looks up and follows parent commits. If shallow information is not ready by the time index-pack is run, index-pack may be lead to non-existent objects. Make fetch-pack save shallow file to disk before invoking index-pack. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com

[PATCH 2/4] index-pack: remove dead code (it should never happen)

2013-03-31 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com --- builtin/index-pack.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/builtin/index-pack.c b/builtin/index-pack.c index ef62124..fdac7c7 100644 --- a/builtin/index-pack.c +++ b/builtin/index-pack.c @@ -735,8 +735,7 @@

[PATCH 3/4] index-pack, unpack-objects: add --not-so-strict for connectivity check

2013-03-31 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
--not-so-strict only checks if all links from objects in the pack point to real objects (either in current repo, or from the pack itself). It's like check_everything_connected() except that: - it does not follow DAG in order - it can detect incomplete object islands - it seems to be faster

[PATCH 4/4] Use --not-so-strict on all pack transfer for connectivity check

2013-03-31 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
This replaces check_everything_connected() with --not-so-strict, which accomplishes the same thing and is generally cheaper. This also forces connectivity check on git clone. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com --- builtin/fetch.c | 6 --

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de wrote: On 03/31/2013 10:32 AM, Thomas Rast wrote: + test_must_fail git merge --ff-only --verify-signatures side-untrusted 2mergeerror + test_i18ngrep from an untrusted key mergeerror +' This test gives me the following: ==26527== Conditional

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
On 03/31/2013 01:38 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de wrote: On 03/31/2013 10:32 AM, Thomas Rast wrote: + test_must_fail git merge --ff-only --verify-signatures side-untrusted 2mergeerror + test_i18ngrep from an untrusted key mergeerror +' This test

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de wrote: expecting success: test_must_fail git merge --ff-only --verify-signatures side-untrusted 2mergeerror test_i18ngrep has a good, untrusted GPG signature mergeerror ==1430== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
On 03/31/2013 02:16 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de wrote: expecting success: test_must_fail git merge --ff-only --verify-signatures side-untrusted 2mergeerror test_i18ngrep has a good, untrusted GPG signature mergeerror ==1430== Conditional jump

Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread John Keeping
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: On 03/31/2013 02:16 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de wrote: expecting success: test_must_fail git merge --ff-only --verify-signatures side-untrusted 2mergeerror test_i18ngrep has

[PATCH v7 0/5] Verify GPG signatures when merging and extend %G? pretty string

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
On 03/31/2013 03:33 PM, John Keeping wrote: It looks like the found pointer has wandered off the end of the string. In the test case here, the gpg_status is: -- 8 -- [GNUPG:] SIG_ID rzX3GbdzQyxB4Jdm1uD0CzL4B4Y 2013-03-31 1364735152 [GNUPG:] GOODSIG 61092E85B7227189 Eris Discordia

[PATCH v7 1/5] Move commit GPG signature verification to commit.c

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- commit.c| 59 + commit.h| 10 +++ gpg-interface.h | 11 +++ pretty.c| 91 + 4 files changed, 93

[PATCH v7 2/5] commit.c/GPG signature verification: Also look at the first GPG status line

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- commit.c | 21 ++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index eb645af..eda7f90 100644 --- a/commit.c +++ b/commit.c @@ -1027,8 +1027,8 @@ static struct { char

[PATCH v7 3/5] merge/pull: verify GPG signatures of commits being merged

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
When --verify-signatures is specified on the command-line of git-merge or git-pull, check whether the commits being merged have good gpg signatures and abort the merge in case they do not. This allows e.g. auto-deployment from untrusted repo hosts. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte

[PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
When --verify-signatures is specified, abort the merge in case a good GPG signature from an untrusted key is encountered. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- Documentation/merge-options.txt| 4 ++-- builtin/merge.c| 2 ++ commit.c

[PATCH v7 5/5] pretty printing: extend %G? to include 'N' and 'U'

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
Expand %G? in pretty format strings to 'N' in case of no GPG signature and 'U' in case of a good but untrusted GPG signature in addition to the previous 'G'ood and 'B'ad. This eases writing anyting parsing git-log output. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de ---

Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] commit.c/GPG signature verification: Also look at the first GPG status line

2013-03-31 Thread John Keeping
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- commit.c | 21 ++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index eb645af..eda7f90 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread John Keeping
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: When --verify-signatures is specified, abort the merge in case a good GPG signature from an untrusted key is encountered. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- Documentation/merge-options.txt|

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index eda7f90..bb2d9ad 100644 --- a/commit.c +++ b/commit.c @@ -1029,6 +1029,8 @@ static struct { } sigcheck_gpg_status[] = { { 'G', [GNUPG:]

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
On 03/31/2013 05:03 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index eda7f90..bb2d9ad 100644 --- a/commit.c +++ b/commit.c @@ -1029,6 +1029,8 @@ static struct { }

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread John Keeping
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 05:03:44PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote: John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index eda7f90..bb2d9ad 100644 --- a/commit.c +++ b/commit.c @@ -1029,6 +1029,8 @@

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Thomas Rast
Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de writes: On 03/31/2013 05:03 PM, Thomas Rast wrote: } sigcheck_gpg_status[] = { { 'G', [GNUPG:] GOODSIG }, { 'B', [GNUPG:] BADSIG }, + { 'U', [GNUPG:] TRUST_NEVER }, + { 'U', [GNUPG:] TRUST_UNDEFINED }, [...] And furthermore, to use an

[PATCH v8 0/5] Verify GPG signatures when merging and extend %G? pretty string

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
On 03/31/2013 04:41 PM, John Keeping wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote: +/* Iterate over all search strings */ for (i = 0; i ARRAY_SIZE(sigcheck_gpg_status); i++) { -const char *found = strstr(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check); -

[PATCH v8 1/5] Move commit GPG signature verification to commit.c

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- commit.c| 59 + commit.h| 10 +++ gpg-interface.h | 11 +++ pretty.c| 91 + 4 files changed, 93

[PATCH v8 2/5] commit.c/GPG signature verification: Also look at the first GPG status line

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- commit.c | 17 - 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index eb645af..3a8453d 100644 --- a/commit.c +++ b/commit.c @@ -1036,13 +1036,20 @@ static void

[PATCH v8 3/5] merge/pull: verify GPG signatures of commits being merged

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
When --verify-signatures is specified on the command-line of git-merge or git-pull, check whether the commits being merged have good gpg signatures and abort the merge in case they do not. This allows e.g. auto-deployment from untrusted repo hosts. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte

[PATCH v8 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
When --verify-signatures is specified, abort the merge in case a good GPG signature from an untrusted key is encountered. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de --- Documentation/merge-options.txt| 4 ++-- builtin/merge.c| 2 ++ commit.c

[PATCH v8 5/5] pretty printing: extend %G? to include 'N' and 'U'

2013-03-31 Thread Sebastian Götte
Expand %G? in pretty format strings to 'N' in case of no GPG signature and 'U' in case of a good but untrusted GPG signature in addition to the previous 'G'ood and 'B'ad. This eases writing anyting parsing git-log output. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte ja...@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de ---

Re: Composing git repositories

2013-03-31 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Thanks for taking the time and effort to review my thoughts. Jens Lehmann wrote: A commit is the thing to record here because it *is* the perfect fit Might be, but saying that doesn't help one bit. I want to know why. I want to improve the user experience of submodules and don't care much

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Jeff King wrote: [...] So, you're saying: don't test compound statements for failure, since anything in the chain could fail and propagate failure. I should only test simple git-foo commands for failure? Sometimes it's annoyingly verbose to break down a compound function. But I think in this

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: [...] Thanks. That is one of the reasons why we do not want to see too many custom test helper functions. I noticed that you queued my original series without modification in rr/triangle. Should I submit a re-roll with Peff's suggestion

Re: [PATCH v2] git-send-email.perl: implement suggestions made by perlcritic

2013-03-31 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: sub foo ($) { my ($arg) = @_; print $arg\n; } sub bar { my ($arg) = @_; print $arg\n; } my @baz = (100, 101, 102); foo @baz; # says 3 bar @baz; # says 100 Ouch. Please drop this patch; I'll resubmit when I feel confident about my change. This

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:21:22AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Jeff King wrote: [...] So, you're saying: don't test compound statements for failure, since anything in the chain could fail and propagate failure. I should only test simple git-foo commands for failure? Right.

[PATCH 1/2] peel_onion: disambiguate to favor tree-ish when we want a tree-ish

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
The function already knows when interpreting $foo^{commit} to tell the underlying get_sha1_1() to expect a commit-ish while evaluating $foo. Teach it to do the same when asked for $foo^{tree}; we are expecting a tree-ish and $foo should be disambiguated in favor of a tree-ish, discarding a

[PATCH 2/2] peel_onion(): teach $foo^{object} peeler

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
A string that names an object can be suffixed with ^{type} peeler to say I have this object name; peel it until you get this type. If you cannot do so, it is an error. v1.8.2^{commit} asks for a commit that is pointed at an annotated tag v1.8.2; v1.8.2^{tree} unwraps it further to the top-level

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes: ... Though honestly, I don't see the point of using --default as opposed to $ git rev-parse --verify ${REV:-master}^{commit} I would agree ${VAR:-default} is sufficient in that particular case. The --default is more about the use of the

Re: Composing git repositories

2013-03-31 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Jens Lehmann wrote: A commit is the thing to record here because it *is* the perfect fit Might be, but saying that doesn't help one bit. I want to know why. [...] To summarize, everyone seems to be elated with the current state of submodules and is vehemently

Re: Composing git repositories

2013-03-31 Thread Phil Hord
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for taking the time and effort to review my thoughts. Jens Lehmann wrote: A commit is the thing to record here because it *is* the perfect fit Might be, but saying that doesn't help one bit. I want to

Re: Composing git repositories

2013-03-31 Thread Seth Robertson
In message CALkWK0=csuawqwk5guf0pbc4_zeoziwqpamcrvbgz5lj0qg...@mail.gmail.com, Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: As a user inexperienced with recursive submodules (I've only used them in this repository), I found it highly confusing. Thanks for clearing them up. You may want to

Re: [PATCH v2] git-send-email.perl: implement suggestions made by perlcritic

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes: Junio C Hamano wrote: sub foo ($) { my ($arg) = @_; print $arg\n; } sub bar { my ($arg) = @_; print $arg\n; } my @baz = (100, 101, 102); foo @baz; # says 3 bar @baz; # says 100 Ouch. Please drop this patch; I'll

[PATCH 1/3] send-email: use return; not return undef; on error codepaths

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com All the callers of ask, extract_valid_address, and validate_patch subroutines assign the return values from them to a single scaler: $var = subr(...); and return undef; in these subroutine can safely be turned into a simpler return;. Doing

[PATCH 2/3] send-email: drop misleading function prototype

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com The subroutine check_file_rev_conflict() is called from two places, both of which expects to pass a single scaler variable and see if that can be interpreted as a pathname or a revision name. It is defined with a function prototype ($) to force a

[PATCH 3/3] send-email: use the three-arg form of open in recipients_cmd

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com Perlcritic does not want to see the trailing pipe in the two-args form of open(), i.e. open my $fh, $cmd \Q$file\E |; If $cmd were a single-token command name, it would make a lot more sense to use four-or-more-args form open

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:21:22AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Jeff King wrote: [...] So, you're saying: don't test compound statements for failure, since anything in the chain could fail and propagate failure. I should only test simple git-foo

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes: Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: [...] Thanks. That is one of the reasons why we do not want to see too many custom test helper functions. I noticed that you queued my original series without modification in

Re: [PATCH 2/3] send-email: drop misleading function prototype

2013-03-31 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Junio C Hamano wrote: From: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com The subroutine check_file_rev_conflict() is called from two places, both of which expects to pass a single scaler variable and see if that can be interpreted as a pathname or a revision name. It is defined with a function

Re: [PATCH 3/3] send-email: use the three-arg form of open in recipients_cmd

2013-03-31 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Junio C Hamano wrote: we cannot rewrite it to open my $fh, -|, $cmd, $file; for extra safety. At least, by using this in the three-arg form: open my $fh, -|, $cmd \Q$file\E; we can silence Perlcritique, even though we do not gain much safety by doing so.

Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] merge/pull: verify GPG signatures of commits being merged

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Sebastian Götte ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de writes: + if (verify_signatures) { + for (p = remoteheads; p; p = p-next) { + struct commit *commit = p-item; + char hex[41]; + struct signature_check signature_check; +

Re: [PATCH] fixup! pathspec: support :(glob) syntax

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes: A formatting fix for a patch currently cooking on nd/magic-pathspecs (cc3d8045ec1e2323c5654e2af834e887f26deb7e). --- The latest version of this wasn't posted to the list in full, so I'm not sure about the recommended way to provide feedback.

Re: [PATCH] bash: teach __git_ps1 about REVERT_HEAD

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Robin Rosenberg robin.rosenb...@dewire.com writes: Signed-off-by: Robin Rosenberg robin.rosenb...@dewire.com --- contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh b/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh index

Re: [PATCH] branch: give better message when no names specified for rename

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathon Mah m...@jonathonmah.com writes: Signed-off-by: Jonathon Mah m...@jonathonmah.com --- The previous message was incorrect when not enough arguments were specified: $ git branch -m fatal: too many branches for a rename operation I changed to branch name required

Re: [PATCH] branch: give better message when no names specified for rename

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Jonathon Mah m...@jonathonmah.com writes: Signed-off-by: Jonathon Mah m...@jonathonmah.com --- The previous message was incorrect when not enough arguments were specified: $ git branch -m fatal: too many branches for a rename

Re: [PATCH] fixup! pathspec: support :(glob) syntax

2013-03-31 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes: A formatting fix for a patch currently cooking on nd/magic-pathspecs (cc3d8045ec1e2323c5654e2af834e887f26deb7e). --- The latest version of this wasn't posted to the list in full,

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: The only reason a topic is queued in 'pu' is to let me not pay attention to it, without risking to forget about it completely ;-). The topics on 'pu' have potential to be a useful change even though they are far from ready for 'next'. That's not even

Re: [PATCH 1/3] send-email: use return; not return undef; on error codepaths

2013-03-31 Thread Eric Sunshine
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: All the callers of ask, extract_valid_address, and validate_patch subroutines assign the return values from them to a single scaler: s/scaler/scalar/g (note the /g) $var = subr(...); and return undef; in

Re: [PATCH 2/3] send-email: drop misleading function prototype

2013-03-31 Thread Eric Sunshine
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: The subroutine check_file_rev_conflict() is called from two places, both of which expects to pass a single scaler variable and see if s/scaler/scalar/g (note the /g) that can be interpreted as a pathname or a revision

Re: [PATCH v2] checkout: add --no-widen for restoring files in sparse checkout mode

2013-03-31 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: git checkout -- paths is usually used to restore all modified files in paths. In sparse checkout mode, this command is overloaded with another meaning: to add back all files in paths that are excluded by sparse patterns. Add --no-widen option to do what

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes: Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: [...] Thanks. That is one of the reasons why we do not want to see too many custom test helper functions. I noticed that you queued my original

Re: [PATCH v2] checkout: add --no-widen for restoring files in sparse checkout mode

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: git checkout -- paths is usually used to restore all modified files in paths. In sparse checkout mode, this command is overloaded with another meaning: to add back all files in paths that are excluded by sparse patterns.

Re: [PATCH v2] checkout: add --no-widen for restoring files in sparse checkout mode

2013-03-31 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: git checkout -- paths is usually used to restore all modified files in paths. In sparse checkout mode, this command is overloaded with another meaning: to add back all files in paths

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Support triangular workflows

2013-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes: Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: [...] Thanks. That is one of the reasons why we do not want to see too many custom test helper