Jens Lehmann wrote:
In commit 0656781fa git mv learned to update the submodule path in the
.gitmodules file when moving a submodule in the work tree. But since that
commit update_path_in_gitmodules() gets called no matter if we moved a
submodule or a regular file, which is wrong and leads to
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de writes:
static struct lock_file lock_file;
+#define SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR ((const char *)1)
I don't like very much hardcoded addresses like this. Are you 100% sure
address 1 will never be
In commit 0656781fa git mv learned to update the submodule path in the
.gitmodules file when moving a submodule in the work tree. But since that
commit update_path_in_gitmodules() gets called no matter if we moved a
submodule or a regular file, which is wrong and leads to a bogus warning
when
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de writes:
static struct lock_file lock_file;
+#define SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR ((const char *)1)
I don't like very much hardcoded addresses like this. Are you 100% sure
address 1 will never be returned by xstrdup on any platform? The risk is
small if not
Am 13.10.2013 17:05, schrieb Matthieu Moy:
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de writes:
static struct lock_file lock_file;
+#define SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR ((const char *)1)
I don't like very much hardcoded addresses like this. Are you 100% sure
address 1 will never be returned by xstrdup on
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de writes:
static struct lock_file lock_file;
+#define SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR ((const char *)1)
I don't like very much hardcoded addresses like this. Are you 100% sure
address 1 will never be returned by xstrdup on any platform? The risk is
6 matches
Mail list logo
