Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (The thread you mention seems to say that we accept entries being missing
> from the index as if they were unchanged, but I don't see a good reason
> for this; you'd be dealing with the full set in the index for the merge,
> even if you don't have a
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is there any current use for read-tree with multiple trees without -m or
> > equivalent?
>
> I did not know it even allowed multiple trees without -m, but
> you are right. It does not seem to complai
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why does --emu23 use I+H for stage 2, rather than just I? Wouldn't this
>> just reintroduce removed files?
>
> They are not "removed files", at least in the original context.
>
> The original intention was...
Gmane turns out to be better remembering
Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any current use for read-tree with multiple trees without -m or
> equivalent?
I did not know it even allowed multiple trees without -m, but
you are right. It does not seem to complain.
I have never thought about using multiple trees withou
4 matches
Mail list logo
