Repo with only one file

2013-08-07 Thread shawn wilson
I started writing this script in a repo I have called misc-scripts where I just keep one off projects and the like (notes, throw away scripts, etc). Well, my boss asked me to create a repo for one of these scripts and I'd like to keep the commit history. Ok, so: % find -type f ! -iname webban.pl

Re: [RFH/PATCH 4/4] OPT__FORCE(): clarify its expected use by using OPT_COUNTUP

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
On 08/07/2013 01:31 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: The parseopt parsing for OPT__FORCE() is implemented in terms of OPT_BOOLEAN() and users of it can take advantage of the counting up behaviour to implement increasing levels of forcefulness by differentiating git cmd -f and git cmd -f -f.

Re: [PATCH v2 12/19] read-cache: read index-v5

2013-08-07 Thread Thomas Gummerer
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes: A little bit more.. On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Gummerer t.gumme...@gmail.com wrote: +static void ce_queue_push(struct cache_entry **head, +struct cache_entry **tail, +struct

Re: [PATCH] replace: forbid replacing an object with one of a different type

2013-08-07 Thread Thomas Rast
Christian Couder chrisc...@tuxfamily.org writes: Users replacing an object with one of a different type were not prevented to do so, even if it was obvious, and stated in the doc, that bad things would result from doing that. To avoid mistakes, it is better to just forbid that though. The

Re: [PATCH] die_with_status: use printf '%s\n', not echo

2013-08-07 Thread Thomas Rast
Matthieu Moy matthieu@imag.fr writes: At least GNU echo interprets backslashes in its arguments. This triggered at least one bug: the error message of rebase -i was turning \t in commit messages into actual tabulations. There may be others. Using printf '%s\n' instead avoids this bad

Re: [PATCH] l10n: de.po: translate 5 messages

2013-08-07 Thread Thomas Rast
Ralf Thielow ralf.thie...@gmail.com writes: The changes look good to me. The following is purely about the original English messages. #: builtin/commit.c:62 -#, fuzzy msgid The previous cherry-pick is now empty, possibly due to conflict resolution.\n If you wish to commit it

Re: [PATCH] l10n: de.po: translate 5 messages

2013-08-07 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:17:08AM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote: This results from Peff's c17592a (commit: tweak empty cherry pick advice for sequencer, 2013-07-26): diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c index a17a5df..39717d5 100644 --- a/builtin/commit.c +++

Re: [PATCH] die_with_status: use printf '%s\n', not echo

2013-08-07 Thread Matthieu Moy
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes: +grep -v error Umm, doesn't that only test that _some_ line in the error does not contain a tab? Indeed. It does work as the error message is just a one-liner, but let's be robust anyway. Whereas you need to test that _no_ line contains

[PATCH v2] die_with_status: use printf '%s\n', not echo

2013-08-07 Thread Matthieu Moy
Some implementations of 'echo' (e.g. dash's built-in) interpret backslash sequences in their arguments. This triggered at least one bug: the error message of rebase -i was turning \t in commit messages into actual tabulations. There may be others. Using printf '%s\n' instead avoids this bad

Re: [PATCH] die_with_status: use printf '%s\n', not echo

2013-08-07 Thread Thomas Rast
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes: Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes: + grep -v error Umm, doesn't that only test that _some_ line in the error does not contain a tab? Indeed. It does work as the error message is just a one-liner, but let's be robust anyway.

Re: Repo with only one file

2013-08-07 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 8/7/2013 8:24, schrieb shawn wilson: ... create a repo for one of these scripts and I'd like to keep the commit history. Ok, so: % find -type f ! -iname webban.pl | while read f; do git filter-branch -f --index-filter git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch $f HEAD ; done Which basically did

Re: [PATCHv3] git-tag man: when to use lightweight or annotated tags

2013-08-07 Thread Daniele Segato
On 07/29/2013 08:02 PM, Daniele Segato wrote: On 07/26/2013 09:36 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Eventually the description section should probably be tweaked to start by explaining what the command is actually for. ;-) Elaborating from this suggestion you gave me I tried to rewrite/rearrange the

[no subject]

2013-08-07 Thread a a
Hello. I find 2 bug about Japanese' Documentation . There are Documentation - Book 's url. ( Please see the details below). I want to bug-fix about this misspell. Do you have Documentation (about Japanese language) on the GitHub? (1)

bug about Japanese' Documentation

2013-08-07 Thread a a
# I am sorry. I forget title and signiture. - Hello. I find 2 bug about Japanese' Documentation . There are Documentation - Book 's url. ( Please see the details below). I want to bug-fix about this misspell. Do you have Documentation (about Japanese language) on the GitHub?

[PATCH 2/4] backup_file dummy function

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
--- pack-write.c | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/pack-write.c b/pack-write.c index e6aa7e3..b728ea2 100644 --- a/pack-write.c +++ b/pack-write.c @@ -344,6 +344,11 @@ struct sha1file *create_tmp_packfile(char **pack_tmp_name) return sha1fd(fd, *pack_tmp_name); }

[PATCH 4/4] repack: add unpack-unreachable

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
--- builtin/pack-objects.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/builtin/pack-objects.c b/builtin/pack-objects.c index 0bd8f3b..0fe01fc 100644 --- a/builtin/pack-objects.c +++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c @@ -2795,6 +2795,9 @@ int cmd_repack(int argc, const char **argv, const char

[PATCH 3/4] pack-objects: do not print usage when repacking

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
--- builtin/pack-objects.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/builtin/pack-objects.c b/builtin/pack-objects.c index 1742ea1..0bd8f3b 100644 --- a/builtin/pack-objects.c +++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c @@ -2585,7 +2585,7 @@ int cmd_pack_objects(int argc, const char

[PATCH 1/4] Build in git-repack

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com pack-objects learns a few more options to take over what's been done by git-repack.sh. cmd_repack() becomes a wrapper around cmd_pack_objects(). --- Makefile | 2 +- builtin.h | 1 +

[PATCH 0/4] Re: Rewriting git-repack.sh in C

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
Hi Duy, I applied your patch on the current master and added 3 patches, so git compiles and the testsuite works without additional breakages. The functionality is obviously not yet completed as the backup_file function is still empty. What do you intend that function will do? Stefan Nguyễn

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Build in git-repack

2013-08-07 Thread Matthieu Moy
[ It's cool you're working on this, I'd really like a git-repack in C. That would fix this http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/226458 ] Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes: From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com pack-objects learns a few more options

Re: [RFH/PATCH 4/4] OPT__FORCE(): clarify its expected use by using OPT_COUNTUP

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes: On 08/07/2013 01:31 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: The parseopt parsing for OPT__FORCE() is implemented in terms of OPT_BOOLEAN() and users of it can take advantage of the counting up behaviour to implement increasing levels of forcefulness by

[RFC] status: show tracking branch even no difference

2013-08-07 Thread Jiang Xin
If the current branch has an upstream branch, and there are differences between the current branch and its upstream, some commands (such as git status, git status -bs, and git checkout) will report their relationship. E.g. $ git status # On branch master # Your branch is ahead of

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Build in git-repack

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes: [ It's cool you're working on this, I'd really like a git-repack in C. That would fix this http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/226458 ] Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes: From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy

Re: [RFC] status: show tracking branch even no difference

2013-08-07 Thread Matthieu Moy
Jiang Xin worldhello@gmail.com writes: With this patch, git status will report relationship between current branch and its upstream counterpart even if there is no difference. $ git status # On branch master # Your branch is identical to its tracking branch: 'origin/master'.

git log --follow filename (with diff.renameLimit=0) not working after subtree add

2013-08-07 Thread Diogo de Campos
Problem: git log --follow filename is not working for files after a big move. Scenario: Just performed a git subtree add where big projects were moved into another repository, and I'm not able to view history for a single file. Sample output: Output after subtree add (no output) git log

Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Hi, This is the difference between whatchanged and log: diff --git a/whatchanged b/log index fa1b223..004d9aa 100644 --- a/tmp/whatchanged +++ b/tmp/log @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -int cmd_whatchanged(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) +int cmd_log(int argc, const char **argv, const char

Re: [RFC] status: show tracking branch even no difference

2013-08-07 Thread Jiang Xin
2013/8/7 Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr: Jiang Xin worldhello@gmail.com writes: With this patch, git status will report relationship between current branch and its upstream counterpart even if there is no difference. $ git status # On branch master # Your branch

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Build in git-repack

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
On 08/07/2013 05:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes: seems overkill to me: why don't you just let cmd_repack call update_server_info(0)? My feeling exactly. I would rather see a patch that does not touch pack-objects at all, and use run_command()

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] rm: delete .gitmodules entry of submodules removed from the work tree

2013-08-07 Thread Jens Lehmann
Am 06.08.2013 23:11, schrieb Junio C Hamano: Thanks, will replace the top two commits and queue. Looks like we are getting ready for 'next'? I hope so, I'm not aware of any open issues. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
On 08/07/2013 06:00 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Hi, This is the difference between whatchanged and log: diff --git a/whatchanged b/log index fa1b223..004d9aa 100644 --- a/tmp/whatchanged +++ b/tmp/log @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -int cmd_whatchanged(int argc, const char **argv, const char

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes: I'd deprecate it first for a year or such and remove it then. In the meantime we could implement already remove the code and change it to: + int cmd_whatchanged(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) + { + return cmd_log(argc,

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Kyle J. McKay
On Aug 7, 2013, at 09:00, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Hi, This is the difference between whatchanged and log: diff --git a/whatchanged b/log index fa1b223..004d9aa 100644 --- a/tmp/whatchanged +++ b/tmp/log @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -int cmd_whatchanged(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] rm: delete .gitmodules entry of submodules removed from the work tree

2013-08-07 Thread Fredrik Gustafsson
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:11:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Thanks, will replace the top two commits and queue. Looks like we are getting ready for 'next'? I'm a bit curious about if we should move towards a reentrent libgit (which would for example make multithreading easier) or not. If

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread John Keeping
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:01:57AM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote: On Aug 7, 2013, at 09:00, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Hi, This is the difference between whatchanged and log: diff --git a/whatchanged b/log index fa1b223..004d9aa 100644 --- a/tmp/whatchanged +++ b/tmp/log @@ -1,4

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Kyle J. McKay
On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:31, John Keeping wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:01:57AM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote: On Aug 7, 2013, at 09:00, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Hi, This is the difference between whatchanged and log: diff --git a/whatchanged b/log index fa1b223..004d9aa 100644 ---

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Stefan Beller
On 08/07/2013 07:50 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes: I'd deprecate it first for a year or such and remove it then. In the meantime we could implement already remove the code and change it to: + int cmd_whatchanged(int argc, const char **argv,

gitweb, How to script alias to a directory? for cloning over http

2013-08-07 Thread Tyrone Lucero
Hello, I need some guide that can explain me the following: I wish to know the correct rule to make work cloning over http with my configuration, without taking all the web server to server only as github I setup gitweb to it can show in a directory by example, localhost/gitweb or

[PATCH 1/5] t5802: add test for connect helper

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
This is an attempt to reproduce a problem reported for a third-party custom connect remote helper. The conjecture is that sometimes git fetch wants to make two connections (one for the primary transfer with 'follow-tags' option set, and then after noticing that some tags are not packed because

[PATCH 0/5] work around transport-take-over hack

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
git fetch sometimes needs to make a real request to the transport after a single fetch_refs request, in order to follow tags that the other end should have sent as part of the primary transfer with follow-tags request. However, a transport that defines connect has a gross hack that destroys its

[PATCH 4/5] fetch: refactor code that fetches leftover tags

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Usually the upload-pack process running on the other side will give us all the reachable tags we need during the primary object transfer in do_fetch(). If that does not happen (e.g. the other side may be running a third-party implementation of upload-pack), we will run another fetch to pick up

[PATCH 5/5] fetch: work around transport-take-over hack

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
A Git-aware connect transport allows the transport_take_over to redirect generic transport requests like fetch(), push_refs() and get_refs_list() to the native Git transport handling methods. The take-over process replaces transport-data with a fake data that these method implementations

[PATCH 3/5] fetch: refactor code that prepares a transport

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Make a helper function prepare_transport() that returns a transport to talk to a given remote. The set_option() helper that used to always affect the file-scope global gtransport now takes a transport as its parameter. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com --- builtin/fetch.c | 46

[PATCH 2/5] fetch: rename file-scope global transport to gtransport

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Although many functions in this file take a struct transport as a parameter, fetch_one() assigns to the global singleton instance which is a file-scope static, in order to allow a parameterless signal handler unlock_pack() to access it. Rename the variable to gtransport to make sure these uses

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-08-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl writes: In your discussion (including the comment), you talk about shallow root (I think that is the same as what we call shallow boundary), I think so, yes. I mean to refer to the commits referenced in .git/shallow, that have their parents hidden. Could

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl writes: In your discussion (including the comment), you talk about shallow root (I think that is the same as what we call shallow boundary), I think so, yes. I mean to refer to the

Re: [PATCH v2 12/19] read-cache: read index-v5

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Gummerer t.gumme...@gmail.com wrote: Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes: [..] +static int read_entries(struct index_state *istate, struct directory_entry **de, + unsigned int *entry_offset, void **mmap, +

Re: [PATCH v2 12/19] read-cache: read index-v5

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Gummerer t.gumme...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Gummerer t.gumme...@gmail.com wrote: +static void ce_queue_push(struct cache_entry **head, +struct cache_entry **tail, +

Re: [PATCH] git exproll: steps to tackle gc aggression

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Martin Fick mf...@codeaurora.org wrote: I wonder if a simpler approach may be nearly efficient as this one: keep the largest pack out, repack the rest at fetch/push time so there are at most 2 packs at a time. Or we we could do the repack at 'gc --auto' time,

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Build in git-repack

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes: [ It's cool you're working on this, I'd really like a git-repack in C. That would fix this http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/226458 ] Stefan

Re: [PATCH 2/4] backup_file dummy function

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com wrote: --- pack-write.c | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/pack-write.c b/pack-write.c index e6aa7e3..b728ea2 100644 --- a/pack-write.c +++ b/pack-write.c @@ -344,6 +344,11 @@ struct sha1file

Re: Remove old forgotten command: whatchanged

2013-08-07 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: The only thing it does is to scratch an irrelevant itch by people who peek the codebase and find an old command whose existence does not even hurt them. They may have too much time on their hand, but that is not an excuse to waste other people's time by adding extra

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-08-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl wrote: Hi folks, while playing with shallow fetches, I've found that in some circumstances running git fetch with --depth can return too many objects (in particular, _all_ the objects for the requested revisions are

[PATCH v2] status: always show tracking branch even no change

2013-08-07 Thread Jiang Xin
If the current branch has an upstream branch, and there are changes between the current branch and its upstream, some commands (such as git status, git status -bs, and git checkout) will report their relationship. E.g. $ git status # On branch master # Your branch is ahead of