th that.)
On 2016-08-16 4:44 AM, Remi Galan Alfonso wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Morton writes:
+if (multiple_commits)
+ advise(_("after resolving the conflicts,
mark the corrected paths with 'git add ' or 'g
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Stephen Morton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Stephen Morton wrote:
>>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Stephen Morton wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Stephen Morton wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
&g
On 2016-08-03 3:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King writes:
I agree it would be a good property to have. I think it's hard to do
atomically, though. Certainly we can wait to tell the other side "your
push has been recorded" until after the hook is run. But we would
already have updated the
On 2016-07-25 6:22 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:34:04PM +0200, Jan Smets wrote:
I have always assumed the post-receive hook to be executed whenever a commit
is "accepted" by the (gitolite) server. That does not seem to be true any
more.
Generally, yeah, I would expect that t
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Stephen Morton wrote:
>
>> Here is my patch then. (Personally, I would add some capitalization and
>> punctuation, but I didn't see much of that in the existing cod
l the %s operation with 'git
%s --abort'" ), action_name(opts), action_name(opts),
action_name(opts), action_name(opts));
}
}
Stephen
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Stephen Morton
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:18:55PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> > Would it be possible to expand the hint message to tell users to run
>> > 'git cherry-pick --continue'
>>
>> Instead of expanding I'd go for replacing?
>>
>> I'd say the user i
When I cherry-pick n commits and one of the first (n-1), fails, what I
should do is resolve the conflict, 'git add' it, and then run 'git
cherry-pick --continue'. However git advises me to
error: could not apply d0fb756... Commit message for test commit
hint: after resolving the conflicts, mark th
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:45:19AM -0500, Stephen Morton wrote:
>>
>>> I am a bit confused because this is basically the example used in
>>> ProGit [1] and it is fundamenta
time somebody's workspace
is up to date.
Stephen
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stephen Morton writes:
>
>> That is interesting, so in the case of a non-ff push, there is no way
>> for a pre-push hook to know what is being pushed in order to run
That is interesting, so in the case of a non-ff push, there is no way
for a pre-push hook to know what is being pushed in order to run?
Steve
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stephen Morton writes:
>
>> The sample pre-push hook provided with git [1] will
The sample pre-push hook provided with git [1] will crash if the local
repo is not up to date with the remote as $remote_sha is not present
in the local repo. I'm not sure if this patch is exactly correct, it's
just provided as an example.
Given that people are likely crafting their own solutions
to mention it.)
Steve
[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Attributes
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:29:31PM -0500, Stephen Morton wrote:
>
>> git config --local filter.dater.smudge 'myDate=`git log
&g
A git smudge filter, at least one that relies on the results from 'git
log' does not seem to work
on file A when doing a 'git update' from a revision where file A
doesn't exist to a revision where
it does exist.
Below is a simple recipe to reproduce.
This appears to me to be a bug. If not, why is
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 09:37:25PM -0400, Stephen Morton wrote:
>
>> 3. Not sure how long this part takes. It takes 1/3 - 1/2 of the time
>> when straced, but I think it's much less, as little as 10s when not
>> stra
ting objects" phase.
Note the number of threads specified: so it
Counting objects: 4, done.
Delta compression using up to 8 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done.
...
6. Time. Note the 121,000 pagefaults
46.08user 0.67system 0:49.47elapsed 94%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
1720240maxresiden
8GB of RAM.
Sorry, typo.
Steve
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Stephen Morton
> wrote:
>> I'm experiencing very slow git pushes. On the order of 1 minute to push a
>> trivial one-line change. When I set GIT_TRACE=1,
(Apologies, after a day I'm cross-posting from git.users. I think the question
is maybe too technical for that group.)
I'm experiencing very slow git pushes. On the order of 1 minute to push a
trivial one-line change. When I set GIT_TRACE=1, I see that it seems to be
taking a lot of time in the pa
o
indicate that I need to explicitly generate them. I assume that once
the index is there, git will just use it automatically.
Steve
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:03 PM, brian m. carlson
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:26:58PM -0500, Stephen Morton wrote:
>> I posted this to comp.v
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Morton
> wrote:
>> I posted this to comp.version-control.git.user and didn't get any response. I
>> think the question is plumbing-related enough that I can ask it here.
&
I posted this to comp.version-control.git.user and didn't get any response. I
think the question is plumbing-related enough that I can ask it here.
I'm evaluating the feasibility of moving my team from SVN to git. We have a very
large repo. [1] We will have a central repo using GitLab (or similar)
22 matches
Mail list logo
