On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:11:22PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
> As I wrote in there, we could already today start using
>
> git am --message-id
>
> when applying patches and this would provide something that a bot could
> annotate with git notes pointing to lore/LKML/LWN/whatever. I think t
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 06:50:51PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> I started out using this approach, but I changed it because the
> implementation was a bit annoying: 'git am' runs 'git mailsplit',
> which just splits the email into two parts:
>
> 1) headers, changelog, and diffstat;
> 2) diff and
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 04:27:48PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> commit ac30b08065cd55362a7244a3bbc8df3563cefaaa
> tree 8f09d9d6ed78f8617b2fe54fe9712990ba808546
> parent 108b97dc372828f0e72e56bbb40cae8e1e83ece6
> author Vegard Nossum 1570284959 +0200
> committer Vegard Nossum 1571408340 +0200
> g
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:01:33PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
> In your example, couldn't Darrick simply base his xfs work on the latest
> xfs branch that was pulled by Linus? That should be up to date with all
> things xfs without having any of the things that made Linus's tree not
> work for
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:23:58PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Of course, this relies strongly on actually having (correct) sha1
> references to previous versions inside the changelog. In my original
> idea, this reference would only appear inside the merge commit that
> binds the patchset togeth
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:27:00PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > cannot open test-results/p5302-pack-index.subtests: No such file or
> > directory at ./aggregate.perl line 153.
>
> Implies that we're trying to _write_ to it, and that the problem is that
> test-results doesn't exist. That should be
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 04:50:13PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 12:03:17PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> > I was trying to run "make profile" on the master branch (commit
> > 5fa0f5238b: "Git 2.23") and it died in the
> >
I was trying to run "make profile" on the master branch (commit
5fa0f5238b: "Git 2.23") and it died in the
$(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN perf
dies with:
cannot open test-results/p5302-pack-index.subtests: No such file or
directory at ./aggregate.perl line 153.
I presume that's becuase th
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 09:23:18AM +0200, Matthias Beyer wrote:
>
> So what I am looking for is tools to automate contributor and maintainer
> workflow, especially:
>
> 1) Repliying to each emailpatch of a set of patches with
>"Reviewed-by: " (or other trailers)
>
>Szenario: I see a patc
Hello, i use Git Bash and check in very frequently.
it appears there is a range from "extreme often" to "extreme very seldom".
Examples:
{me, extreme often, Windows} very granular, with a brief yet appropriate
comment [like narrating a story] per commit-i change a few
lines of code,
Alt+Tab to
PREAMBLE [START] - please feel free to skip this first section
Forgive me for asking this question on a mailing list.
stackoverflow would probably kill such a question before the bits were fully
saved to a server drive.
Let me explain why i am asking and why i am not being a troll.
[a] i'm "ol
Help, please and thank you.
i have spent > one hour searching via Google and by visiting git-scm,
BitBucket, github, et cetera, for an excellent tutorial for
beginners and refresher for one who has not touched git for quite a while.
if you've done the same tutorial, you will recognize its featur
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:08:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Ditto for sprintf, where you should _always_ be using at least xsnprintf
> (or some better tool, depending on the situation). And for strncpy,
> strlcpy (or again, some better tool) is strictly an improvement.
Nitpick: this may be true
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 04:21:47PM -0700, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> I don't think that it's really important to find a "best" ordering for
> commands or glossary terms; it's more a matter of finding someone who
> is willing to take responsibility for choosing a reasonable ordering.
> Presumably the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:12:19PM +0200, Peter Backes wrote:
> This incorrect claim is completely inverting the logic of Art. 17.
>
> The logic is clarly that if ANY of lit (a) to (f) is satisfied, the
> data must be deleted.
>
> It is not necessary for ALL of them to be satisfied.
>
> In part
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 11:50:32PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote:
> I just want to remind folks that Gmane disappeared as a regular list because
> of a legal challenge, the SCO v IBM Unix court case keeps rumbling on, so
> clarifying the legal case for:
> a) holding the 'personal git meta data', and
>
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 08:26:57AM +0200, Peter Backes wrote:
>
> If you run a website where the world can access a repository, you are
> responsible for obeying the GDPR with respect to that repository. If
> you receive a request to be forgotten, you have to make sure you stop
> publishing tha
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 01:21:29AM +0200, Peter Backes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 03:38:49PM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> > > Again: The GDPR certainly allows you to keep a proof of copyright
> > > privately if you have it. However, it does not allow you to keep
> > > publishing it if someone e
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:16:16AM +0200, Peter Backes wrote:
>
> Verifying the commit ID by itself wouldn't be any less efficient than
> before. Admitteldly, it wouldn't verify the author and authordate
> integrity anymore without additional work. That would be some overhead,
> sure, and could
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 10:52:33PM +02h00, hPeter Backes wrote:
> But I will take your message as saying you at least don't see any
> obvious criticism leading to complete rejection of the approach.
If you don't think a potential 2x -- 10x performance hit isn't a
blocking factor --- sure, go ahea
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Peter Backes wrote:
>
> He said: It would be a tyranny of lawyers.
>
> Let's not have a tyranny of lawyers. Let us, the engineers and hackers,
> exercise the necessary control over those pesky lawyers by defining and
> redefining the state of the art in
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 07:46:17PM +0200, Peter Backes wrote:
>
> Let's be honest: We do not know what legitimization exactly in each
> specific case the git metadata is being distributed under.
It seems like you are engaging in something even more dangerous than a
hardware engineering pretendin
Currently, `commit.gpgsign` allows you to give either 'true' or 'false' as a
value. If the key is not present, commits will fail:
```sh
$ git commit -m "example"
error: gpg failed to sign the data
fatal: failed to write commit object
```
I like to reuse my config file across several machines, so
From: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia
Some people often run 'git status -b'.
The config variable status.branch allows to set it by default.
Signed-off-by: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Lienard--Mayor
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy
---
Changes to be commented:
- Cleaning test
Docum
From: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia
Some people always run 'git status -s'.
The configuration variable status.short allows to set it by default.
Signed-off-by: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Lienard--Mayor
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy
---
Changes to be commented:
- Cleaning test
From: Yann Droneaud
This test ensures a merge commit is always created
when merging an annotated (signed) tag without --ff-only option.
Signed-off-by: Yann Droneaud
---
Here's a proposition for a test tath check the creation of a merge commit
when merging a tag.
It's not in final shape: the l
From: Martin von Zweigbergk
This series adds supports for 'git log --no-walk=unsorted', which
should be useful for the re-roll of my mz/rebase-range series. It also
addresses the bug in cherry-pick/revert, which makes it sort revisions
by date.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Junio C Hamano w
From: Martin von Zweigbergk
When 'git cherry-pick' and 'git revert' are used with ranges such as
'git cherry-pick A..B', the order of the commits to pick are
determined by the default date-based sorting. If a commit has a commit
date before the commit date of its parent, it will therfore be appli
From: Martin von Zweigbergk
'git cherry-pick A B' implicitly sends --no-walk=sorted to the
revision walker, which means that the older of A and B will be applied
first, which is most likely surprising to most. Fix this by instead
sending --no-walk=unsorted to the revision walker.
Signed-off-by:
From: Martin von Zweigbergk
'git cherry-pick' internally sets the --reverse option while walking
revisions, so that 'git cherry-pick branch@{u}..branch' will apply the
revisions starting at the oldest one. If no uninteresing revisions are
given, --no-walk is implied. Still, the documentation for
From: Martin von Zweigbergk
When 'git log' is passed the --no-walk option, no revision walk takes
place, naturally. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, however, the provided
revisions still get sorted by commit date. So e.g 'git log --no-walk
HEAD HEAD~1' and 'git log --no-walk HEAD~1 HEAD' give the s
6000 rsp 8100dff7df58
Initializing CPU#2
(hmm... as i can see one string above [and if i understand correctly]
boot_cpu_id == 0 in my case:
CPU 1: Syncing TSC to CPU 0 )
--
Best regards.
Alexander Y. Fomichev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Public PGP key: http://sysadminday.
On Saturday 25 June 2005 02:20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Alexander Y. Fomichev wrote:
> > I've been trying to switch from 2.6.12-rc3 to 2.6.12 on Dual EM64T 2.8
> > GHz [ MoBo: Intel E7520, intel 82801 ]
> > but kernel hangs on boot right afte
On Saturday 25 June 2005 02:20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Alexander Y. Fomichev wrote:
> > I've been trying to switch from 2.6.12-rc3 to 2.6.12 on Dual EM64T 2.8
> > GHz [ MoBo: Intel E7520, intel 82801 ]
> > but kernel hangs on boot right afte
34 matches
Mail list logo
