On 10/07/2017 06:36 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 10/06/2017 07:16 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>
>>> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had
>>> time to check...
>>>
>>> Does this patch make it
On 10/06/2017 07:16 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had
>> time to check...
>>
>> Does this patch make it easier to *set* HEAD to an unborn branch that
>> d/f
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had
> time to check...
>
> Does this patch make it easier to *set* HEAD to an unborn branch that
> d/f conflicts with an existing reference? If so, that might
On 10/06/2017 04:42 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> If our call to refs_read_raw_ref() fails, we check errno to
> see if the ref is simply missing, or if we encountered a
> more serious error. If it's just missing, then in "write"
> mode (i.e., when RESOLVE_REFS_READING is not set), this is
> perfectly
4 matches
Mail list logo