Re: [PATCH 3/4] status: give more information during rebase -i

"Junio C Hamano" writes: >Guillaume Pagès writes: >> git status gives more information during rebase -i, about the list of >> command that are done during the rebase. It displays the two last >> commands executed and the two next lines to be executed. It also gives >> hints to find the whol

Re: [PATCH 6/6] am --abort: keep unrelated commits on unborn branch

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Paul Tan writes: > >> Since 7b3b7e3 (am --abort: keep unrelated commits since the last failure >> and warn, 2010-12-21), git-am would refuse to rewind HEAD if commits >> were made since the last git-am failure. This check was implemented in

Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms > > s/add/addition/ > > Antoine Delaite writes: > >> +static const char *name_bad; >> +static const char *name_good; > > Same remark as PATCH 2. As for patch 2, I think "n

Re: GNU diff and git diff - difference on myers algorithm?

Hi Luis, On 2015-06-08 20:34, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Based on a cursory review of the git code I get the impression that > GNU diff and git 'diff' do not share any code for the possible diff > algorithms. Indeed, Git's diff machinery is based[*1*] ofn libxdiff[*2*], not on GNU diff. > I'm in

Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded "bad|good" by variables

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Antoine Delaite writes: > >> --- a/git-bisect.sh >> +++ b/git-bisect.sh >> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC= >> >> _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]' >> _x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40" >> +NAME_BAD="bad" >> +NAME_G

Re: [PATCH 1/4] status: factor two rebase-related messages together

"Junio C Hamano" writes: >Hmmm, it obviously does not break anything but it is not obvious why >this is a good change. >Is it that you wanted to have a single instance of "if on a branch, >we say 'you are rebasing that branch', otherwise we say 'you are >rebasing'"? Even then, I am not sure

Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms s/add/addition/ Antoine Delaite writes: > +static const char *name_bad; > +static const char *name_good; Same remark as PATCH 2. > } else if (starts_with(refname, "good-")) { Did you forget this one? > - > -

<    1   2