On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:01:25PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> > Hmm. Out of curiosity I tried:
>> >
>> > git blame v2.4.0 -- t/t6031-merge-recursive.sh
>> >
>> > and it segfaults. This b
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
wrote:
> So, do I forget about the blame patch (given that I'm not fixing an
> advertised syntax, even if it's supported) and fix annotate instead or
> do I fix both? And if I should swing for both, do I create a single
> patch or a chain o
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
> This subject is a bit long; try to keep it to about 72 characters or less.
>
> More importantly, though, it doesn't give us a high level overview of
> the purpose of the patch, which is that it is fixing blame to work on
> a file at a give
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:01:25PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:11:25AM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> >> > blame content even if the path provided does match an existing
> >> > blob on said revision.
> >>
> >> git-b
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:11:25AM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> > blame content even if the path provided does match an existing
>> > blob on said revision.
>>
>> git-blame documentation does not advertise "blame " as a
>> valid invocation. It
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:11:25AM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
>> > blame content even if the path provided does match an existing
>> > blob on said revision.
>>
>> git-blame documentation does not advertise "blame " as a
>> valid invocation.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:11:25AM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > blame content even if the path provided does match an existing
> > blob on said revision.
>
> git-blame documentation does not advertise "blame " as a
> valid invocation. It does advertise "blame -- ", and this
> case already wo
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
wrote:
> blame: avoid checking if a file exists on the working tree
> if a revision is provided
This subject is a bit long; try to keep it to about 72 characters or less.
More importantly, though, it doesn't give us a high level overview
If a file has been deleted/renamed, blame refused to display
blame content even if the path provided does match an existing
blob on said revision.
$ git status
On branch hide
Changes not staged for commit:
(use "git add/rm ..." to update what will be committed)
(use "git checkout -- ..." to di
9 matches
Mail list logo