Re: [RFC] send-email: avoid duplicate In-Reply-To and References headers

Eric Wong writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> I think it is sensibleto give priority to the --in-reply-to option >> given from the command line over the in-file one. I am not sure if >> we want to drop references, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to >>

Re: [RFC] send-email: avoid duplicate In-Reply-To and References headers

Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Wong writes: > > When parsing an mbox, it is possible to get existing In-Reply-To > > and References headers blindly appended into the headers of > > message we generate. This is probably the wrong thing to do > > and we should

Re: [RFC] send-email: avoid duplicate In-Reply-To and References headers

Eric Wong writes: > When parsing an mbox, it is possible to get existing In-Reply-To > and References headers blindly appended into the headers of > message we generate. This is probably the wrong thing to do > and we should prioritize what was given in the command-line, >

[RFC] send-email: avoid duplicate In-Reply-To and References headers

When parsing an mbox, it is possible to get existing In-Reply-To and References headers blindly appended into the headers of message we generate. This is probably the wrong thing to do and we should prioritize what was given in the command-line, cover letter, and previously-sent messages. One

MAY GOD BLESS YOU

Dearest Beloved Greetings, I am Mrs Potjaman Shinawatra.suffering from Breast Cancer long time illness. i am currently admitted in a private hospital here in Thailand, I have some funds I inherited from my ex-loving husband who was former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The amount of

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] revision.c: args starting with "-" might be a revision

Junio C Hamano writes: > Such a change to handle_revision_opt() unfortunately affects other > callers of the function, so it may not be worth it, and I think > "decrement and then increment, because this codepath wants to check > to see something that may ordinarily be

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] revision.c: args starting with "-" might be a revision

Siddharth Kannan writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:35:47PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I am wondering if writing it like the following is easier to >> understand. I had a hard time figuring out what you are trying to >> do, partly because "args" is quite a

[PATCH] rm: reuse strbuf for all remove_dir_recursively() calls, again

Don't throw the memory allocated for remove_dir_recursively() away after a single call, use it for the other entries as well instead. This change was done before in deb8e15a (rm: reuse strbuf for all remove_dir_recursively() calls), but was reverted as a side-effect of 55856a35 (rm: absorb a

Re: [PATCH] cocci: detect useless free(3) calls

Am 11.02.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Lars Schneider: > how do you run these checks on the entire Git source? > Do you run each semantic patch file on the source like this? > > spatch --sp-file contrib/coccinelle/qsort.cocci --dir /path/to/git/git > ... > spatch --sp-file contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci

Re: [PATCH] cocci: detect useless free(3) calls

> On 11 Feb 2017, at 14:58, René Scharfe wrote: > > Add a semantic patch for removing checks that cause free(3) to only be > called with a NULL pointer, as that must be a programming mistake. > > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe > --- > No cases are found in master or

Re: [PATCH] cocci: detect useless free(3) calls

René Scharfe writes: > Add a semantic patch for removing checks that cause free(3) to only be > called with a NULL pointer, as that must be a programming mistake. > > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe > --- > No cases are found in master or next, but 1d263b93

Re: [PATCH] mingw: use OpenSSL's SHA-1 routines

Johannes Sixt writes: > Am 10.02.2017 um 00:41 schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> ... >> Nice. Will queue as jh/mingw-openssl-sha1 topic; it is a bit too >> late for today's integration cycle to be merged to 'next', but let's >> have this by the end of the week in 'master'. > > Please

Re: [RFC PATCH] show decorations at the end of the line

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I've signed off on this, because I think it's an "obvious" improvement, > but I'm putting the "RFC" in the subject line because this is clearly a > subjective thing. Side note: the one downside of showing

[RFC PATCH] show decorations at the end of the line

So I use "--show-decorations" all the time because I find it very useful to see where the origin branch is, where tags are etc. In fact, my global git config file has [log] decorate = auto in it, so that I don't have to type it out all the time when I just do my usual 'git log".

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] stash: teach 'push' (and 'create') to honor pathspec

On 02/05, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer writes: > > > @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ create_stash () { > > untracked="$1" > > new_style=t > > ;; > > + --) > > + shift > > +

[RFH] Request for Git Merge 2017 impressions for Git Rev News

Hello, Git Rev News #24 is planned to be released on February 15. It is meant to cover what happened during the month of January 2017 (and earely February 2017) and the Git Merge 2017 conference that happened on February 2nd and 3rd 2017. A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:

Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] stash: introduce new format create

On 02/06, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:26:41PM +, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > git stash create currently supports a positional argument for adding a > > message. This is not quite in line with how git commands usually take > > comments (using a -m flag). > > > > Add a new

[PATCH] cocci: detect useless free(3) calls

Add a semantic patch for removing checks that cause free(3) to only be called with a NULL pointer, as that must be a programming mistake. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe --- No cases are found in master or next, but 1d263b93 (bisect--helper: `bisect_next_check` & bisect_voc shell

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] stash: add test for the create command line arguments

On 02/06, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:26:40PM +, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > +test_expect_success 'create stores correct message' ' > > + >foo && > > + git add foo && > > + STASH_ID=$(git stash create "create test message") && > > + echo "On master: create test

Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] stash: introduce push verb

[sorry for the late responses, life is keeping me busy] On 02/06, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:26:39PM +, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > + -m|--message) > > + shift > > + stash_msg=${1?"-m needs an argument"} > > +

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] git gui: allow for a long recentrepo list

Ping Any comments anyone? (https://public-inbox.org/git/20170122195301.1784-1-philipoak...@iee.org/) I understand that the Git-for-Windows team is planning to include this in their next release, so additional eyes are welcomed. Philip From: "Philip Oakley" date:

Re: Non-zero exit code without error

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Serdar Sahin wrote: > Hi Christian, > > > We are using a private repo (Github Enterprise). Maybe you could try 'git fast-export --anonymize ...' on it. > Let me give you the > details you requested. > > > On Git Server: git version

Re: [PATCH] mingw: use OpenSSL's SHA-1 routines

Am 10.02.2017 um 00:41 schrieb Junio C Hamano: Johannes Schindelin writes: From: Jeff Hostetler Use OpenSSL's SHA-1 routines rather than builtin block-sha1 routines. This improves performance on SHA1 operations on Intel processors. ...

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] revision.c: args starting with "-" might be a revision

Hey Junio, On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:35:47PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So the difference is just "--left" (by the way, our codebase seem to > prefer "left--" when there is no difference between pre- or post- > decrement/increment) that adjusts the slot in argv[] where the next > unknown