On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
>>>
It's not wonderful, but it's in line with how git-checkout stops caring
about ambiguity after the first argum
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
>>
>>> It's not wonderful, but it's in line with how git-checkout stops caring
>>> about ambiguity after the first argument can be resolved as a ref
>>> (there's even a test for it, t20
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
>
>> It's not wonderful, but it's in line with how git-checkout stops caring
>> about ambiguity after the first argument can be resolved as a ref
>> (there's even a test for it, t2010.6).
>
> But that is justi
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
> It's not wonderful, but it's in line with how git-checkout stops caring
> about ambiguity after the first argument can be resolved as a ref
> (there's even a test for it, t2010.6).
But that is justifiable because checkout can only ever take one
revision. What fol
4 matches
Mail list logo