On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
What is the real point of writing into *.lock and renaming? It
serves two purposes: (1) everybody adheres to that convention---if
we managed to take the lock index.lock, nobody else will compete
and interfere with us
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
If you do not
use the extra temporary file, you start from index.lock left by
add -i, write the updated index into index.lock and if you fail
to write, you have to roll back the entire index---you lose the
option to use the index left by add -i
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
It makes me wonder if a cleaner way of rebuilding cache-treei in this
case is from git-add--interactive.perl, or by simply spawn git
update-index --rebuild-cache-tree after running
git-add--interactive.perl.
We could check
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:38:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
It makes me wonder if a cleaner way of rebuilding cache-treei in this
case is from git-add--interactive.perl, or by simply spawn git
update-index
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:38:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
It makes me wonder if a cleaner way of rebuilding cache-treei in this
case is from git-add--interactive.perl, or by
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com
wrote:
@@ -342,6 +342,15 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char **argv,
const char *prefix,
discard_cache();
On 14/07/14 16:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com
wrote:
@@ -342,6 +342,15 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char
**argv, const char *prefix,
discard_cache();
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com
wrote:
@@ -342,6 +342,15 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char
**argv, const char *prefix,
discard_cache();
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
merge resolution, made me think of Duy's split index work.
Yes, there is a deliberately dropped hunk from dt/cache-tree-repair
in that merge, because the topic relied on being
On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
merge resolution, made me think of Duy's split index work.
Yes, there is a deliberately dropped hunk from dt/cache-tree-repair
in
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
merge resolution, made me think of Duy's split index work.
Yes, there is a
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 15:16 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
merge resolution, made
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramsay Jones ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.uk writes:
that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
merge
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com wrote:
@@ -342,6 +342,15 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char **argv,
const char *prefix,
discard_cache();
read_cache_from(index_lock.filename);
+ if
14 matches
Mail list logo
