Potential Same Name Bug

I hit an issue in Git today that seemed to be a bug. Basically what happened is in our master branch we had two files, one named something like "file_NAME.png" and another named "file_name.png" in the same folder. In the develop branch in the same repo we had removed the "file_NAME.png" file so

Re: Last mile to 1.0?

Ryan Anderson wrote: Git falls into the category of distributed source code management tools, similar to Arch or Darcs (or, in the commercial world, BitKeeper). This means that every working directory is a full-fledged repository with full revision tracking capabilities. That's not actually

Dumb servers (was: [ANNOUNCE] Cogito-0.12)

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That said, I really think the dumb protocols are useless anyway. No other system supports pure static object pulling anyway, and as far as I'm concerned, I want rsync to kind of work (but it won't be optimal, since re-packing

Re: [PATCH] git-pasky spec file

Chris Wright wrote: Here's a simple spec file to do rpm builds. (snip) Creates a package named git, which seems fine since Linus' isn't likely to be packaged directly. Um. Really? I can't imagine why Linus's git wouldn't be packaged directly. He has strongly indicated that folks who want

Re: Yet another base64 patch

David A. Wheeler wrote: Does anyone know of any other issues in how git data is stored that might cause problems for some situations? Windows' case-insensitive/ case-preserving model for NTFS and vfat32 seems to be enough (since the case is preserved) so that the format should work, If git

Re: [darcs-devel] Darcs and git: plan of action

Ray Lee wrote: On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:04 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other is replace very instace of identifier `foo` with identifier`bar`. That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1]. No, it can't. Seriously. A darcs replace patch is encoded as rules,

Re: [darcs-devel] Darcs and git: plan of action

Ray Lee wrote: On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:05 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote: The other is replace very instace of identifier `foo` with identifier`bar`. That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1]. No, it can't. Seriously. A darcs replace patch is encoded as rules, not effects