I munged the receive-pack update from Josef Weidendorfer to run
the same hook with different calling signature once again at the
very end. Of course, this was an ugly hack, and Josef correctly
pointed out it should be a separate hook. This commit changes
it to run hooks/post-update instead, with
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 04:21:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Noel Maddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(silly perl stuff)
Please refrain from making this thread I know more Perl than
you do; thank you.
Sorry. Just trying to help, but suitably chastened.
Thanks
--
Time is an illusion.
Noel Maddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please refrain from making this thread I know more Perl than
you do; thank you.
Sorry. Just trying to help, but suitably chastened.
I realize that what you sent was not _too_ Perlish and being
helpful. If you feel I overreacted, I am sorry; I _do_ think
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:37:36AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Noel Maddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please refrain from making this thread I know more Perl than
you do; thank you.
Sorry. Just trying to help, but suitably chastened.
I realize that what you sent was not _too_ Perlish
I think I've now got the parallel pull use in ssh-pull to the point where
it could be useful to post. Similar stuff should work for http-pull (where
it will probably be more interesting), but I have to read more libcurl
documentation.
Initial results on ssh-pull are encouraging: on my local
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This work is based on some now in -pu; what should I base my patches on? I
would ideally like to add a function to one of the patches in -pu and fix
a subtle bug in the other, in addition to further patches to actually use
the feature in ssh-pull.
The proposed
The current shortlog list is backward making it look odd.
This reverses it so things appear more logically.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/git-shortlog b/git-shortlog
--- a/git-shortlog
+++ b/git-shortlog
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ sub shortlog_output {
#
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:15:19PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Anyone have any good scripts for taking patches in email and turning
them into git commits, preferrably while preserving the author information?
git-applymbox seems to be what you are looking for.
It was named dotest in the old
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:15:19PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Anyone have any good scripts for taking patches in email and turning
them into git commits, preferrably while preserving the author information?
git-applymbox seems to be what you are looking for.
It was
Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current shortlog list is backward making it look odd.
This reverses it so things appear more logically.
Sorry, I do not know how the shortlog looked like in BK days,
but it would be nice to match that order. I do not have
preference either way
Or am I missing something?
The most recent commit to cogito makes the documentation depend on
asciidoc.conf, but it looks like the actual config file was not added.
--
Sebastian Kuzminsky
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current shortlog list is backward making it look odd.
This reverses it so things appear more logically.
Sorry, I do not know how the shortlog looked like in BK days,
but it would be nice to match that
G'day Junio,
Jon, do we really need bignum to do the flow computation? From
a quick glance, it appears to me that the fraction manipulation
part is quite well isolated. Do you think adding the support
for using other bignum implementation be reasonable (assuming
you do need to use bignum
Hi,
do you mean git-prune-script? It is documented in
Documentation/git-prune-script.txt.
Ciao,
Dscho
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi,
there's git-check-files in the repository, but AFAIK nobody uses it, not
even git status, which would be the primary candidate. If really no
users of git-check-files exist, maybe we should remove it?
Ciao,
Dscho
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body
This series pipelines pulling by ssh; objects are requested as soon as
possible, and read once as many hashes as possible have been stuffed in
the queue. This seems to be a major improvement in throughput, although it
doesn't do any packing, so the total data transferred is higher than it
Add function to look up an object which is entirely unknown, so that
it can be put in a list. Various other functions related to lists of
objects.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
object.c | 55 ++-
object.h | 10
This processes objects in two simultaneous passes. Each object will
first be given to prefetch(), as soon as it is possible to tell that
it will be needed, and then will be given to fetch(), when it is the
next object that needs to be parsed. Unless an implementation does
something with
This causes ssh-pull to request objects in prefetch() and read then in
fetch(), such that it reduces the unpipelined round-trip time.
This also makes sha1_write_from_fd() support having a buffer of data
which it accidentally read from the fd after the object; this was
formerly not a problem,
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 02:45:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ryan Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All emails are sent as a reply to the previous email, making it easy to
skip a collection of emails that are uninteresting.
I understand why _some_ people consider this
Signed-off-by: Ryan Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/git-send-email-script.txt | 13 +
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
b09788cd193a52bb44ab39826c9c6959f79305d5
diff --git a/Documentation/git-send-email-script.txt
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current shortlog list is backward making it look odd.
This reverses it so things appear more logically.
Sorry, I do not know how the shortlog looked like in BK days,
but it would be nice to match that order. I do not have
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
shrug I don't really care either way.
I suspect it's mostly the users, not the developers, who care. The core
developers already know what went in, and have git to see it, they don't
look at the shortlog output. So I suspect it's more important to see
23 matches
Mail list logo
