Felipe Contreras wrote:
@@ -447,6 +449,9 @@ static int get_sha1_basic(const char *str, int len,
unsigned char *sha1)
if (len str[len-1] == '}') {
for (at = len-2; at = 0; at--) {
if (str[at] == '@' str[at+1] == '{') {
+
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved
around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any
more.
There is no need to call this function recursively with the
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved
around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved
around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any
more.
There is no need to call this function recursively with the branch of
@{-N} substituted because dwim_{ref,log} already replaces it.
However,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved
around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any
more.
There is no need to call this function recursively with the
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved
around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any
more.
There is no need to call this function recursively with the
6 matches
Mail list logo
