Hi Junio,
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
From: Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] fast-export: make sure refs are updated properly
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:17:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
If you changed your stance on the patch Sverre and I sent to fix this, we
could get a non-partial fix for this.
This is long time ago so I may be misremembering the details, but I
thought the original patch was (ab)using object flags to
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
If you changed your stance on the patch Sverre and I sent to fix this,
we could get a non-partial fix for this.
This is long time ago so I may be misremembering the details, but
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
We added rev_cmdline_info since then so that we can tell what refs
were given from the command line in what way, and I thought that we
applied a patch from Sverre that uses it instead of the object
flags.
Sverre Rabbelier srabbel...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
We added rev_cmdline_info since then so that we can tell what refs
were given from the command line in what way, and I thought that we
applied a patch from
On 21.11.2012, at 06:08, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Never mind that others have said that that's not the current interface
(I don't yet see why it would be a good interface after a transition,
but maybe it would be). Still, hopefully that clarifies the
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
...
The current behavior is most certainly not what we want. After this
patch, nothing gets exported, because nothing was selected (everything
is UNINTERESTING).
The
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:08:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
With such a one-sided discussion, I've been having a hard time
convincing myself if Felipe's effort is making the interface better,
or just breaking it even more for existing remote helpers, only to
fit his world model better.
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, transport-helper shouldn't even be specifying the negative
(^) refs, but that's another story.
Hrm, I am not sure I understand what you mean by this.
How should it be telling the fast-export up to what commit the
receiving end
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, transport-helper shouldn't even be specifying the negative
(^) refs, but that's another story.
Hrm, I am not sure I understand what you mean by this.
How should it be telling the fast-export up to what
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, transport-helper shouldn't even be specifying the negative
(^) refs, but that's another story.
Hrm, I am not sure I understand what
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Never mind that others have said that that's not the current interface
(I don't yet see why it would be a good interface after a transition,
but maybe it would be). Still, hopefully that clarifies the intended
meaning.
Care to explain how the
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
I see Felipe keeps repeating that there are bugs, and keeps posting
patches to change fast-export, but I haven't seen a concrete No,
the reason why you see these problems is because you are not using
the interface
13 matches
Mail list logo
