On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:37 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 1/6/21 8:25 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Anyway, I've got a workaround that I'm going to push.
>
> It's fixed now.
>
> @Ian: Can you please try to push the changes now?
It worked.
Thanks.
Ian
b87ec922c4090fcacf802c73b6bfd59a8632f8a5
diff
On 1/6/21 8:25 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Anyway, I've got a workaround that I'm going to push.
It's fixed now.
@Ian: Can you please try to push the changes now?
Thanks,
Martin
On 1/4/21 12:47 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 1/4/21 12:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to update server hook first and I'll create an issue for
GitPython.
So I was not correct about this. Also the server hooks uses now GitPython
to identify modified files.
I've just created an
On 1/4/21 12:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to update server hook first and I'll create an issue for
GitPython.
So I was not correct about this. Also the server hooks uses now GitPython
to identify modified files.
I've just created an issue for that:
On 12/24/20 1:16 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
I have no idea who that is (if it is a single user at all,
if it isn't any user with git write permissions).
CCing Joel, he should help us how to set a git config
that will be used by the server hooks.
I am not sure that requiring both the server
> > I have no idea who that is (if it is a single user at all,
> > if it isn't any user with git write permissions).
>
> CCing Joel, he should help us how to set a git config
> that will be used by the server hooks.
I am not sure that requiring both the server and the user to agree
on a
On 12/21/20 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I have no idea who that is (if it is a single user at all,
if it isn't any user with git write permissions).
CCing Joel, he should help us how to set a git config
that will be used by the server hooks.
Martin
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:39:31AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 12/18/20 7:30 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I don't know the tradeoffs here. This approach sounds fine to me.
>
> Trade off is that we need to setup server (that's fine).
> And people have to locally do the same, otherwise
On 12/18/20 7:30 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I don't know the tradeoffs here. This approach sounds fine to me.
Trade off is that we need to setup server (that's fine).
And people have to locally do the same, otherwise they'll newly see:
$ git gcc-verify -p
Checking
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 2:28 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 12/17/20 5:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > As discussed at
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561995.html ,
> > the ChangeLog checker does not correctly handle files with non-ASCII
> > file
On 12/17/20 5:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote:
As discussed at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561995.html ,
the ChangeLog checker does not correctly handle files with non-ASCII
file names.
This patch fixes the problem. I have little experience with
As discussed at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561995.html ,
the ChangeLog checker does not correctly handle files with non-ASCII
file names.
This patch fixes the problem. I have little experience with Python,
so I may have made some foolish mistakes here.
OK to commit?
12 matches
Mail list logo
