Jacob Keller writes:
> I didn't find any problems besides what you had already outlined
> before I started reading the series. It looks pretty much like I
> thought it would. I like the idea of saying "I want X" rather than the
> command returning "This was a Y"
Yeah,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:53:02PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:33:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> > A flag to affect the behaviour (as opposed to as a secondary
>> > return value, like Peff's
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:53:02PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:33:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > A flag to affect the behaviour (as opposed to as a secondary
> > return value, like Peff's patch does) can be made to work. Perhaps
> > a flag that says "keep the
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:33:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> A flag to affect the behaviour (as opposed to as a secondary
>> return value, like Peff's patch does) can be made to work. Perhaps
>> a flag that says "keep
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:33:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> A flag to affect the behaviour (as opposed to as a secondary
> return value, like Peff's patch does) can be made to work. Perhaps
> a flag that says "keep the input as is if the result is not a local
> branch name" would pass an
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> I guess something like the patch below works, but I wonder if there is a
>> less-horrible way to accomplish the same thing.
>
> I suspect that a less-horrible would be a lot more
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 03:05:37PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > Perhaps with s/not_in_refs_heads/not_a_branch_name/ (or swapping
> > polarity, "is_a_branch_name"), the resulting code may not be too
> > hard to read?
>
> What about changing interpret-branch-name gains a flag to return a
> fully
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:28:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > I guess something like the patch below works, but I wonder if there is a
> > less-horrible way to accomplish the same thing.
>
> I suspect that a less-horrible would be a lot more
Jacob Keller writes:
> What about changing interpret-branch-name gains a flag to return a
> fully qualified ref rather than returning just the name? That seems
> like it would be more reasonable behavior.
There are two kinds of callers to i-b-n. The ones that want a
Jeff King writes:
> I guess something like the patch below works, but I wonder if there is a
> less-horrible way to accomplish the same thing.
I suspect that a less-horrible would be a lot more intrusive. It
would go like "interpret-branch-name only gives local branch name,
and
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:02:33AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Ugh. Actually, there are a few complications I found:
>
> 1. Checking "HEAD" afterwards means you can't actually have a branch
> named "HEAD". Doing so is probably insane, but we probably really
> _do_ want to just disallow
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 03:01:58AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> I do think the bug is in strbuf_check_branch_ref(), but it's hard for it
> to do a better job. It needs to feed arbitrary expressions into
> interpret_branch_name() to resolve things like "@{upstream}", "@{-1}",
> "foo@{upstream}", etc.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:43:46AM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just discover something which very much seems a bug to me
> > while making an error in renaming a branch.
> > The scenario
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:49:15AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > > $ git branch -m -f orig @
> [...]
>
> Regardless of the original intent, I think it is wrong to convert "@" to
> a branch named "HEAD". I think the bug is in strbuf_check_branch_ref(),
> which blindly sticks "refs/heads/"
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:43:46AM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for reporting, but I don't think it is a bug.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just discover something which very much seems a bug
Hello,
Thanks for reporting, but I don't think it is a bug.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just discover something which very much seems a bug to me
> while making an error in renaming a branch.
> The scenario is the
Hi,
I just discover something which very much seems a bug to me
while making an error in renaming a branch.
The scenario is the following:
- I have a branch named 'orig'
- I want to make some experimental changes on it:
$ git checkout -b temp orig
$ ... edit some files ...
17 matches
Mail list logo