On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute
too backwards-incompatible a change to make this an error. I think
it could be argued both ways: it *is* an improvement, but it could
also possibly
Hi Peff,
On 2015-06-08 18:56, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute
too backwards-incompatible a change to make this an error. I think
it could be argued both ways: it
Hi Michael,
On 2015-06-08 08:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable to
an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such cases
as errors.
I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute too
Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable to
an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such cases
as errors.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
builtin/fsck.c | 13 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
On 06/08/2015 04:27 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On 2015-06-08 08:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable
to an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such
cases as errors.
I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain
Hi Michael,
On 2015-06-08 17:09, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 06/08/2015 04:27 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On 2015-06-08 08:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable
to an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such
6 matches
Mail list logo
