This commit is a revival of Lars Hjemli's 2009 patch to provide an
option to include submodules in the output of `git archive`.
The `--recurse-submodules` option (named consistently with fetch, clone,
and ls-files) will recursively traverse submodules in the repository and
consider their contents
Reviving an old patch from Lars Hjemli to teach `git archive` to
`--recurse-submodules`, which is, in my opinion, a sorely needed feature. I'm
afraid this is the first patch I've submitted for review, so I wasn't sure who
to CC. Apologies if I've gotten the wrong folks.
Nikhil Benesch (1):
archi
Brandon Williams writes:
>> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
>> index 0b2596e88a..bc5fecf8c5 100644
>> --- a/submodule.c
>> +++ b/submodule.c
>> @@ -1239,6 +1239,141 @@ int bad_to_remove_submodule(const char *path,
>> unsigned flags)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static int submodule_
Brandon Williams writes:
>> +git_dir = real_pathdup(git_dir_);
>> +work_tree = real_pathdup(work_tree_);
>
> Just a note that this is a spot that'll be affected by the change to
> real_pathdup() which adds a 'die_on_error' parameter to correct bad
> behaviour I introduced.
Thanks for a r
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
> option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
>
> The use-case I have for this is to find the last-good rollout tag
> given a known-bad . Right now, given a hypothetically ba
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Change these invocations which currently error out without the -l, to
> behave as if though -l was provided:
>
> git tag -l [--contains|--points-at|--[no-]merged]
Shouldn't this be
git tag -l [[--[no-]contains|--points-at|--[no-]merged] ]
[]
i.e
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I haven't looked at the patch text of this one closely yet, but I
> think the goals of both make sense, so we would eventually want to
> have them both.
> ...
> So perhaps you would want this applied first, so that existing three
> can already benefit from "implicit --lis
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>> Junio: This will merge conflict with my in-flight --no-contains
>> patch. I can re-send either one depending on which you want to accept
>> first, this patch will need an additional test for --no-contains. I
>> just wanted to get this on the ML for review before
Many developers use functionality in their editors that allows for quick
syntax checks, including warning about questionable constructs. This
functionality allows rapid development with fewer errors. However, such
functionality generally does not allow the specification of
project-specific define
I've been working on rewriting git stash as a c builtin and I have all
but three tests passing. I'm having a bit of trouble fixing them, as
well as a few other issues, so I'd really appreciate some help. Don't
bother commenting on the small details yet as I still need to go
though the code to make
Am 09.03.2017 um 12:01 schrieb Zenobiusz Kunegunda:
OK, I printed euids inside function calling getcwd(). Every single
EUID is the same and have expected value. The same as any other local
application run by this user. Permissions of every directory in the
path are OK.
/bin/pwd -P inside directo
W dniu 10.03.2017 o 22:44, Phil Hord pisze:
> This week a user accidentally did this:
>
> $ git push origin origin/master
> Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
> To parent.git
> * [new branch] origin/master -> origin/master
>
> He saw his mistake when the "new branch" mess
I've been working on rewriting git stash as a c builtin and I have all
but three tests passing. I'm having a bit of trouble fixing them, as
well as a few other issues, so I'd really appreciate some help. Don't
bother commenting on the small details yet as I still need to go
though the code to make
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> [...]
>> @@ -1874,6 +1886,8 @@ int filter_refs(struct ref_array *array, struct
>> ref_filter *filter, unsigned int
>> broken = 1;
>> filter->kind = type &
Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
The use-case I have for this is to find the last-good rollout tag
given a known-bad . Right now, given a hypothetically bad
commit v2.10.1-3-gcf5c7253e0, you can find
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> [...]
> @@ -1874,6 +1886,8 @@ int filter_refs(struct ref_array *array, struct
> ref_filter *filter, unsigned int
> broken = 1;
> filter->kind = type & FILTER_REFS_KIND_MASK;
>
> + init_contains_cache(&ref_cbdata.cont
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 3:52 PM, KES wrote:
> Hi. I have done `git push --force` but I forget to `pull`,
>
> Counting objects: 7, done.
> Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
> Compressing objects: 100% (7/7), done.
> Writing objects: 100% (7/7), 765 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done.
> Total 7 (delta 6
Hi. I have done `git push --force` but I forget to `pull`,
Counting objects: 7, done.
Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (7/7), done.
Writing objects: 100% (7/7), 765 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done.
Total 7 (delta 6), reused 0 (delta 0)
To xxxgit:cry/cry.git
+ 48e9058..
Am 11.03.2017 um 00:33 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> René Scharfe writes:
>
>> @ depends on r @
>> expression E;
>> @@
>> - *&
>>E
>
> I guess my source of the confusion is that the tool that understands
> the semantics of the C language still needs to be told about that.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:51:32AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> Looking at this, I'm pretty sure that using "--contains" with "--merged"
>> has similar problems, as they both use the UNINTERESTING bit. So even
>> without your patch, there is a lur
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, James Melvin wrote:
> The new --preserve-and-prune option renames old pack files
> instead of deleting them after repacking and prunes previously
> preserved pack files.
I think some of this rationale...
> This option is designed to prevent stale file handle exc
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Luuk wrote:
> I am new to GIT, so i'm playing around with a repository and git is hanging
> on 'git push',
> How can i find out what i'm doing wrong here?
>
> D:\TEMP\test\test>git remote -v
> origin git://mini/test.git (fetch)
> origin git://mini/test.git (push
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> Change these invocations which currently error out without the -l, to
> behave as if though -l was provided:
>
> git tag -l [--contains|--points-at|--[no-]merged]
Oops, this should be:
git tag -l [--contains|--points-at|-
Change these invocations which currently error out without the -l, to
behave as if though -l was provided:
git tag -l [--contains|--points-at|--[no-]merged]
I ran into what turned out to be not-a-bug in "branch" where it,
unlike "tag" before this patch, accepts input like:
git branch --
I am new to GIT, so i'm playing around with a repository and git is
hanging on 'git push',
How can i find out what i'm doing wrong here?
D:\TEMP\test\test>git remote -v
origin git://mini/test.git (fetch)
origin git://mini/test.git (push)
D:\TEMP\test\test>git status
On branch master
Your bran
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM, sourav mondal
wrote:
> I'm working on "Add more builtin pattern for userdiff" as my microproject for
> Gsoc17.As I noticed javascript's builtin driver was not present in userdiff
> of git/git tree. Hopefully this pattern will cover all cases. I'm really
> eager
I'm working on "Add more builtin pattern for userdiff" as my microproject for
Gsoc17.As I noticed javascript's builtin driver was not present in userdiff of
git/git tree. Hopefully this pattern will cover all cases. I'm really eager to
know about my work and wiiling to add more pattern for well
27 matches
Mail list logo
