Re: The fetch command should "always" honor remote..fetch

Lewis Diamond writes: >>> 'git fetch foo master' would result in (FETCH_HEAD omitted): >>> [new ref] refs/heads/master -> foo/master //OK, but missing another >>> ref! (case 2) >>> //It should also fetch refs/users/bob/heads/master -> foo/bob/master >> >> This is an incorrect expectation. > > Ind

Re: Makefile: Another "make" command is used when going into SUBDIR perl

On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 04:33:17PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 06.04.2014 01:10, schrieb Bjarni Ingi Gislason: > >Package: git-1.9.0 > > > > Another make command is used in the Makefile when it enters subdir > >PERL. > > > > The used "make" command is a link in my home directory to > >"/usr

[PATCH 3/3] Change update_refs to run a single commit loop once all work is finished.

During update_refs we will both be deleting refs as well as updating/changing the refs. Since both delete and update now use the same lock/update/commit pattern lock = lock_ref_sha1_basic() (or varient of) write_ref_sha1(lock)/delete_ref_loose(lock) unlock_ref(lock) | commit_ref_lock(l

[PATCH 2/3] Split delete_ref_loose() into a separate flag-for-deletion and commit phase

Change delete_ref_loose()) to just flag that a ref is to be deleted but do not actually unlink the files. Change commit_ref_lock() so that it will unlink refs that are flagged for deletion. Change all callers of delete_ref_loose() to explicitely call commit_ref_lock() to commit the deletion. The n

[PATCH 1/3] Split writing and commiting a ref into two separate functions.

Change the function write_ref_sha1() to just write the ref but not commit the ref or the lockfile. Add a new function commit_ref_lock() that will commit the change done by a previous write_ref_sha1(). Update all callers of write_ref_sha1() to call commit_ref_lock(). The new pattern for updating a

[PATCH 0/3] Make update-refs more atomic

refs.c:update_refs() intermingles doing updates and checks with actually applying changes to the refs in loops that abort on error. This is done one ref at a time and means that if an error is detected that will fail the operation after only some of the ref operations have been been updated on the

Re: Race condition with git-status and git-rebase

Yiannis Marangos writes: > process A calls git-rebase > process A applies the 1st commit > process B calls git-status > process B calls read_cache() > process A applies the 2nd commit > process B holds the index.lock > process B writes back the old index (the one that was read from read_cache())

Re: [PATCH] Remove the close_ref function.

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ronnie Sahlberg writes: > >> @@ -2824,8 +2816,7 @@ int write_ref_sha1(struct ref_lock *lock, >> return -1; >> } >> if (write_in_full(lock->lock_fd, sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40) != 40 || >> - write_in_full(lock->lo

Re: [PATCH] Unicode: update of combining code points

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > >> Unicode 6.3 defines the following code as combining or accents, >> git_wcwidth() should return 0. >> >> Earlier unicode standards had defined these code point as "reserved": > > Thanks for the update. Could the commit message also explai

Re: [PATCH] Remove the close_ref function.

Ronnie Sahlberg writes: > @@ -2824,8 +2816,7 @@ int write_ref_sha1(struct ref_lock *lock, > return -1; > } > if (write_in_full(lock->lock_fd, sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40) != 40 || > - write_in_full(lock->lock_fd, &term, 1) != 1 > - || close_ref(lock) < 0) {

Re: [PATCH] Remove redundant close_ref function

Ronnie Sahlberg writes: > List, > > This is a trivial patch that removes the function close_ref() from refs.c. > This function was only called from two codepaths and can be removed since > both codepaths shortly afterwards > both call unlock_ref() which implicitely closes the file anyway. > > By

Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'

Christian Couder writes: > +Help add RFC 822-like headers, called 'trailers', at the end of the > +otherwise free-form part of a commit message. I think it is somewhat misleading to use the word "headers" like that. 'trailers' look similar to RFC-822-headers but they come at the end. The sente

[PATCH] Remove redundant close_ref function

List, This is a trivial patch that removes the function close_ref() from refs.c. This function was only called from two codepaths and can be removed since both codepaths shortly afterwards both call unlock_ref() which implicitely closes the file anyway. By removing this function we simplify the

[PATCH] Remove the close_ref function.

close_ref() is only called from two codepaths semi-immediately before unlock_ref() is called. Since unlock_ref() will also close the file if it is still open, we can delete close_ref() and let the file become closed during unlock_ref(). This simplifies the refs.c api by removing a redundant funct

What's cooking for today

As I do not want to send the full "what's cooking" report back to back, here is just a highlight of updates. A handful of topics are now in 'master', including: - Fix for mis-used "nor", by Justin Lebar. - MSVC port fixes, by Marat Radchenko. - Portability fixes for gmtime sanity checking, b

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] commit: add --ignore-submodules[=] parameter

On 8. 4. 2014 20:43, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 08.04.2014 01:03, schrieb Ronald Weiss: >> Git commit honors the 'ignore' setting from .gitmodules or .git/config, >> but didn't allow to override it from command line, like other commands do. >> >> Useful values for commit are 'all' (default) or 'none

Re: Changes based on a branch not yet merged back to master

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:22:44AM -0700, K. Kwan wrote: > My tree would look like this: > > - x - x - x (master) > >    \ x - x (A) x - x (B) > > > But after merge of branch (A), I would like it to look like this: > > - x - x - x x (master) >    \/ \ > x - x (A)

[PATCH] gitk: show staged submodules regardless of ignore config

Currently setting submodule..ignore and/or diff.ignoreSubmodules to "all" suppresses all output of submodule changes for gitk. This is really confusing, as even when the user chooses to record a new commit for an ignored submodule by adding it manually this change won't show up under "Local changes

[PATCH] git-gui: show staged submodules regardless of ignore config

Currently setting submodule..ignore and/or diff.ignoreSubmodules to "all" suppresses all output of submodule changes for git-gui. This is really confusing, as even when the user chooses to record a new commit for an ignored submodule by adding it manually this change won't show up under "Staged Cha

Re: Race condition with git-status and git-rebase

Maybe you will find it useful: this is one way that I use to manually debug the race condition (and it works in Linux): diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c index d9550c5..c0511f6 100644 --- a/builtin/commit.c +++ b/builtin/commit.c @@ -1283,6 +1283,8 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const

Re: git log for only certain branches

Robert Dailey writes: > I have more details about my inquiry on StackOverflow: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22823768/view-git-log-with-merges-for-only-certain-branches > > Basically I'd like to know if it is possible to show the graph for > ONLY branches that I list. The key here is that

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #02; Mon, 7)

Am 08.04.2014 20:46, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Jens Lehmann writes: > >> Am 08.04.2014 00:19, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >>> * jl/status-added-submodule-is-never-ignored (2014-04-07) 2 commits >>> - commit -m: commit staged submodules regardless of ignore config >>> - status/commit: show staged su

Re: git log for only certain branches

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Robert Dailey writes: > >> I have more details about my inquiry on StackOverflow: >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22823768/view-git-log-with-merges-for-only-certain-branches >> >> Basically I'd like to know if it is possible to show the

Re: [PATCH] describe: rewrite name_rev() iteratively

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 01:47:14AM +0300, Dragos Foianu wrote: > The "git describe --contains" command uses the name_rev() function which > is currently a recursive function. This causes a Stack Overflow when the > history is large enough. > > Rewrite name_rev iteratively using a stack on the hea

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #02; Mon, 7)

Jens Lehmann writes: > Am 08.04.2014 00:19, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> * jl/status-added-submodule-is-never-ignored (2014-04-07) 2 commits >> - commit -m: commit staged submodules regardless of ignore config >> - status/commit: show staged submodules regardless of ignore config > > I have two m

Our official home page and logo for the Git project

Recently, somebody approached Software Freedom Conservancy, wishing to obtain our blessing for using the Git logo on some trinket they are planning to make. We joined Conservancy earlier, primarily so that we have a legal entity that can receive and pool the GSoC mentor stipend, and because we are

Race condition with git-status and git-rebase

Hi, Since I don't know how to fix it, this is my bug report: git-status reads the index file then holds the `index.lock', it writes the updated index in `index.lock' and renames the `index.lock' to `index', but if it used with git-rebase then there is a (rare) race condition. I reproduce this at

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] commit: add --ignore-submodules[=] parameter

Am 08.04.2014 01:03, schrieb Ronald Weiss: > Git commit honors the 'ignore' setting from .gitmodules or .git/config, > but didn't allow to override it from command line, like other commands do. > > Useful values for commit are 'all' (default) or 'none'. The others > ('dirty' and 'untracked') have

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

Hi David, thanks for the whole story. We understand why the empty directories handling was never completed, and how it could be, if one developer submited patches for that. Regards, Olivier LE ROY - Mail original - De : David Kastrup À : Matthieu Moy Cc : Olivier LE ROY ; "git@vge

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #02; Mon, 7)

Am 08.04.2014 00:19, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > * jl/status-added-submodule-is-never-ignored (2014-04-07) 2 commits > - commit -m: commit staged submodules regardless of ignore config > - status/commit: show staged submodules regardless of ignore config I have two more patches for gitk and git-gu

Re: [PATCH v2.1] commit: add --ignore-submodules[=] parameter

Am 07.04.2014 23:46, schrieb Ronald Weiss: > On 6. 4. 2014 18:28, Jens Lehmann wrote: >> Am 02.04.2014 21:56, schrieb Ronald Weiss: >>> On 2. 4. 2014 20:53, Jens Lehmann wrote: Am 01.04.2014 23:59, schrieb Ronald Weiss: > On 1. 4. 2014 22:23, Jens Lehmann wrote: >> Am 01.04.2014 01:35,

Changes based on a branch not yet merged back to master

I have a feature branch (A) containing changes awaiting code review. I now need to begin work on new feature (B) that is dependent on new files and changes made in branch (A). Is there "proper" way to rebase just the changes made in branch (B) back onto master (M) branch resulting from the me

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

Hi Mattieu, thanks for this answer. It is clear enough. Olivier LE ROY - Mail original - De : Matthieu Moy À : Olivier LE ROY Cc : "git@vger.kernel.org" Envoyé le : Mardi 8 avril 2014 17h03 Objet : Re: Handling empty directories in Git Olivier LE ROY writes: > The solution: put

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

Hello Andrew, yes that is possible to have scripts create the missing directories. The reason I asked this is people at my work want to avoid the hassle of having to create a script for that. They want to checkout seamlessly as they used to do with subversion. I guess it is similar as progra

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

Matthieu Moy writes: > The reason would be closer to "there is a valuable reason, but not > valuable enough to change Git to do it". It's actually not so easy to > track directories properly. Storing them in the Git repository is > actually possible (actually, an empty tree is a special case of t

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Andrew Keller wrote: > On Apr 8, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Olivier LE ROY wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have a project under SVN with contains empty directories. >> >> I would like to move this project on a Git server, still handling empty >> directories. >> >> The soluti

Re: git log for only certain branches

On Tue, Apr 08 2014, Robert Dailey wrote: > I have more details about my inquiry on StackOverflow: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22823768/view-git-log-with-merges-for-only-certain-branches > > Basically I'd like to know if it is possible to show the graph for > ONLY branches that I list. The

Re: git log for only certain branches

Robert Dailey writes: > I have more details about my inquiry on StackOverflow: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22823768/view-git-log-with-merges-for-only-certain-branches > > Basically I'd like to know if it is possible to show the graph for > ONLY branches that I list. Not sure it'll direc

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

Olivier LE ROY writes: > The solution: put a .gitignore file in each empty directory to have them > recognized by the Git database cannot work, because some scripts in my > projects test the actual emptiness of the directories. Another option is to have a post-checkout hook that does the mkdir

Re: Handling empty directories in Git

On Apr 8, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Olivier LE ROY wrote: > Hello, > > I have a project under SVN with contains empty directories. > > I would like to move this project on a Git server, still handling empty > directories. > > The solution: put a .gitignore file in each empty directory to have them

Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'

Michael Haggerty writes: > Sorry for reappearing in this thread after such a long absence. I > wanted to see what is coming up (I think this interpret-trailers command > will be handy!) so I read this documentation patch carefully, and added > some questions and suggestions below. Thanks for re

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #01; Fri, 4)

Johannes Sixt writes: > Am 08.04.2014 02:39, schrieb Duy Nguyen: >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote: >>> Am 05.04.2014 11:19, schrieb Johannes Sixt: Am 04.04.2014 22:58, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > * sz/mingw-index-pack-threaded (2014-03-19) 1 commit > - Enable in

Students project on Git (Ensimag)

Hi, Since 2010, I'm offering my students in Ensimag ( http://ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr/ ) to contribute to free software (including Git) as part of a school project. I'm maintaining a list of ideas here: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/SmallProjectsIdeas Feel free to add/improve/comment o

Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'

On 04/08/2014 01:35 PM, Christian Couder wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> How are existing trailers recognized in the input commit message? Do >> trailers have to be configured to be recognized? Or are all lines >> matching a specific pattern considered trailer

Handling empty directories in Git

Hello, I have a project under SVN with contains empty directories. I would like to move this project on a Git server, still handling empty directories. The solution: put a .gitignore file in each empty directory to have them recognized by the Git database cannot work, because some scripts in

Re: [PATCH v2 02/25] unable_to_lock_die(): rename function from unable_to_lock_index_die()

On 04/07/2014 08:47 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 01:33:44AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> This function is used for other things besides the index, so rename it >> accordingly. > > Oh, and here it is. I should really have just read ahead before > responding to patch 1. >

git log for only certain branches

I have more details about my inquiry on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22823768/view-git-log-with-merges-for-only-certain-branches Basically I'd like to know if it is possible to show the graph for ONLY branches that I list. The key here is that the graph should also show relati

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #01; Fri, 4)

Am 08.04.2014 02:39, schrieb Duy Nguyen: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> Am 05.04.2014 11:19, schrieb Johannes Sixt: >>> Am 04.04.2014 22:58, schrieb Junio C Hamano: * sz/mingw-index-pack-threaded (2014-03-19) 1 commit - Enable index-pack threading in msysgit.

Re: [PATCH v10 12/12] trailer: add blank line before the trailers if needed

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Hmph, this is more fixing a mistake made earlier in the series at > the end than adding a new feature or something. Can you start from > a version that does not have the mistake from the beginning? Ok, I will squash this patch in other p

Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> +This command is a filter. It reads the standard input for a commit >> +message and applies the `token` arguments, if any, to this >> +message. The resulting message is emited on the standard output. > > s/emited/emitted/ Ok. >> +Some

Installing GIT on Solaris 10

Hi, I want to install git on my remote Sun sparc Solaris 10 server. Please help me with download package and installation instructions. Also help me with the dependencies. Thanks alot. Regards, Rahul Kumar Sent from my Nokia phone -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe gi

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #01; Fri, 4)

On 04/07/2014 09:42 PM, Ramsay Jones wrote: On 07/04/14 19:35, Johannes Sixt wrote: Am 05.04.2014 11:19, schrieb Johannes Sixt: Am 04.04.2014 22:58, schrieb Junio C Hamano: * sz/mingw-index-pack-threaded (2014-03-19) 1 commit - Enable index-pack threading in msysgit. What is the status of

Re: [PATCH v3] Clarify pre-push hook documentation

Hey guys, I was on vacation for a little over a week, I'll be back on this this coming week (haven't forgotten). David On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Philip Oakley wrote: > From: "Junio C Hamano" >> >> David Cowden writes: >> >> >>> The documentation as-is does not mention that the pre-push

Re: [PATCH] describe: rewrite name_rev() iteratively

[cc: Sylvestre Ledru ] On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Dragos Foianu wrote: > The "git describe --contains" command uses the name_rev() function which > is currently a recursive function. This causes a Stack Overflow when the > history is large enough. No need to capitalize "stack overflow". It

Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'

Sorry for reappearing in this thread after such a long absence. I wanted to see what is coming up (I think this interpret-trailers command will be handy!) so I read this documentation patch carefully, and added some questions and suggestions below. On 04/06/2014 07:02 PM, Christian Couder wrote: