On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
I've never said any such thing.
I only said I am not enthused against a proposal to add a build
target that runs checkpatch or equivalent over *all* existing code,
which will invite needless churn (read again the part
haven't
submitted my application about git bisect (life got in the way!), but
Michael Heggarty remarked in $gmane/242703 that my original idea had
too little meat in it to constitute a good GSoC proposal.
Cheers,
Jacopo Notarstefano
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
I think you fundamentally cannot use two labels that are merely
distinct and bisect correctly. You need to know which ones
(i.e. good) are to be excluded and the other (i.e. bad) are to be
included when computing the
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Vincenzo di Cicco enzodici...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there, I'm NaN.
Recently I enrolled to this mailing list thanks to the GSoC.
I've looked the Ideas Page but -unfortunately- some projects are very
difficult for me.
Hi Vincenzo!
I also got interested in
a strbuf
(documented in Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt) to store this value.
Remove this unneeded check and thus allow for branch names longer than 1009
characters.
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Notarstefano jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com
---
branch.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Kyle J. McKay mack...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't reproduce, mostly, on Mac OS X 10.5.8 or 10.6.8.
What I mean by mostly is that the very first time I ran the test script I
got approximately 36 of these errors:
fatal: unable to access
Redirection operators should have a space before them, but not after them.
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Notarstefano jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com
---
git-bisect.sh | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
index 73b4c14..af4d04c 100755
The part about this being a GSoC microproject should go below the
three dashes, since it's not information that needs to
be recorded in the codebase.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guanglin Xu mzguang...@gmail.com wrote:
GSoC2014 Microproject: according to the idea#2 for microprojects, change
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you
saying that we should stick to good/bad and allow the users use
nothing else, because allowing fixed will be confusing?
No! Pretty much the opposite of that. My idea (the mark subcommand)
is to let people define their own pairs
and reused across all tools that require them.
(Sorry for sending this email twice, I thought I had sent it to the
list as well!)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jacopo Notarstefano jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com writes:
Does this make sense? Did I
be
marked as easy.
(Sorry for sending this email twice! I thought I had sent it to the
list as well.)
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 02/26/2014 09:28 AM, Jacopo Notarstefano wrote:
my name is Jacopo, a student developer from Italy, and I'm interested
.
Michael
On February 27, 2014 5:16:40 PM CET, Jacopo Notarstefano
jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
What happens if the user mixes, say, good and fixed in a single
bisect session?
I don't think that's
and brevity; this was typed on a phone.
Michael
On February 27, 2014 5:16:40 PM CET, Jacopo Notarstefano
jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
What happens if the user mixes, say, good and fixed in a single
bisect session
, which uses a strbuf
(documented in Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt) to store this value.
This patch removes this unneeded check and thus allows for branch names
longer than 1019 characters.
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Notarstefano jacopo.notarstef...@gmail.com
---
Submitted as GSoC microproject
This patch removes this unneeded check and thus allows for branch names
longer than 1019 characters.
Ach! I amended the commit in my local history to read Remove this
unneded check and thus allow for branch names longer than 1019
characters, but for some reason git format-patch -1 --signoff
Nice. new_ref is passed in install_branch_config() in latest code. I
guess you already made sure this function did not make any assumption
about new_ref's length?
The function install_branch_config uses the strbuf, as I wrote in the
commit message. The contents of this buffer are then fed to
in contacting the prospective mentor, Christian Couder,
to go over these. What's the proper way to ask for an introduction? I
tried asking on IRC, but had no success.
Cheers,
Jacopo Notarstefano
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord
17 matches
Mail list logo
