Re: Change in output as a result of patch

On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 14:25 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I suspect that with a moderately-sized refactoring around > validate_new_branchname() function, this should be doable. Instead > of passing two "int" parameters force and attr_only, make them into > a single "unsigned flag" I guess it's

Re: Change in output as a result of patch

Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > b347d06bf09 (branch: deprecate --set-upstream and show help if we detect > possible mistaken use, > Thu Aug 30 19:23:13 2012) > > Is there any possibility for it to be removed some time in the near > future? > > I'm asking

Re: Change in output as a result of patch

Let me see if I got everything correctly. Correct me if any of the below observations are wrong. On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 14:25 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Imagine this scenario instead, which I think is more realistic > example of making a typo. The set of existing branches are like > this: >

Re: Change in output as a result of patch

Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > The patch in the previous mail results in a change in output as > specified below. > > $ git branch > * master > foo > bar > > Before patch, > > $ git branch -m hypothet master > fatal: A branch named 'master'