Thanks!
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
We want to do this to make it easier to handle atomic renames in rename_ref
for
the case 'git branch -m foo/bar foo'.
In an ideal world, a part of me would rather see git branch -m
Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
We want to do this to make it easier to handle atomic renames in rename_ref
for
the case 'git branch -m foo/bar foo'.
In an ideal world, a part of me would rather see git branch -m doing
something more targeted by only packing the two refs it is working
with, and only
This means that most loose refs will no longer be present after the rename
which triggered a test failure since it assumes the file for an unrelated
ref would still be present after the rename.
We want to do this to make it easier to handle atomic renames in rename_ref for
the case 'git branch -m
3 matches
Mail list logo
