Felipe Contreras wrote:
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
This patch looks unsafe, and in the examples listed in the patch
description the changed behavior does not look like an improvement.
Worse, the description lists a few examples but gives no
(again to the mailing list)
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
That doesn't say anything.
and in the examples listed in the patch
description the changed
Hi Felipe,
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
wrote:
and in the examples listed in the patch
description
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
and in the examples listed in the patch
description the changed behavior does not look like an improvement.
I
Felipe Contreras wrote:
So you think what we have now is the correct behavior:
% git fast-export master ^master
reset refs/heads/master
from :0
No, I don't think that, either.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
So you think what we have now is the correct behavior:
% git fast-export master ^master
reset refs/heads/master
from :0
No, I don't think that, either.
Well, that's what we have now, and
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Well, that's what we have now, and you want to preserve this feature
(aka bug), right?
Nope. I just don't want regressions, and found a patch description
that did nothing to explain to the reader how it avoids regressions
more than a little disturbing.
I also think
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Well, that's what we have now, and you want to preserve this feature
(aka bug), right?
Nope. I just don't want regressions, and found a patch description
that did nothing to explain to the
Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. I just don't want regressions, and found a patch description
that did nothing to explain to the reader how it avoids regressions
more than a little disturbing.
I see, so you don't have
Hi again,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
So, the above description conveyed zero information, as you mentioned.
A clearer explanation would be the following:
fast-export: don't emit reset command for negative refs
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. I just don't want regressions, and found a patch description
that did nothing to explain to the reader how it
Felipe Contreras wrote:
I don't think it's my job to explain to you how 'git fast-export'
works.
Actually, if you are submitting a patch for inclusion, it is your job
to explain to future readers what the patch does. Yes, the reader
might not be deeply familiar with the part of fast-export
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
So, the above description conveyed zero information, as you mentioned.
I meant, this, of course:
They have been
Felipe Contreras wrote:
It's not my job to
explain to you that 'git fast-export' doesn't work this way, you have
a command line to type those commands and see for yourself if they do
what you think they do with a vanilla version of git.
14 matches
Mail list logo
