On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32:47AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > I think the more relevant comparison is "--no-merged", and it behaves
>> > the same way as your new --no-contains. I don't think I saw this
>> >
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32:47AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > I think the more relevant comparison is "--no-merged", and it behaves
> > the same way as your new --no-contains. I don't think I saw this
> > subtlety in the documentation, though. It might be worth mentioning
> >
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:32:54AM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
>> option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
>>
>> This allows
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:32:54AM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
> option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
>
> This allows for finding the last-good rollout tag given a known-bad
> . Given a
Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
This allows for finding the last-good rollout tag given a known-bad
. Given a hypothetically bad commit cf5c7253e0 the git version
revert to can be found with this
5 matches
Mail list logo