Max Horn m...@quendi.de writes:
On 21.02.2014, at 19:04, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Isn't it possible for some helpers to _do_ want to
tell us that it did not have to force after all by _not_ saying
forced update and overwrite -forced_update with zero?
Yes to the first part,
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
But I think I was worried too much into the future---I agree that
the code can stay as you proposed until such a remote-helper needs
more support, because overwrite with zero is necessary but is
probably not sufficient---it also may need to be able to
Am 24.02.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
But I think I was worried too much into the future---I agree that
the code can stay as you proposed until such a remote-helper needs
more support, because overwrite with zero is
On 20.02.2014, at 20:22, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Max Horn m...@quendi.de writes:
On 19.02.2014, at 22:41, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
* fc/transport-helper-fixes (2013-12-09) 6 commits
- remote-bzr: support the new 'force' option
- test-hg.sh: tests are now
On 2014-02-21 10.55, Max Horn wrote:
On 20.02.2014, at 20:22, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Max Horn m...@quendi.de writes:
On 19.02.2014, at 22:41, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
* fc/transport-helper-fixes (2013-12-09) 6 commits
- remote-bzr: support the new 'force'
Junio C Hamano wrote:
* jk/branch-at-publish-rebased (2014-01-17) 5 commits
- t1507 (rev-parse-upstream): fix typo in test title
- implement @{publish} shorthand
- branch_get: provide per-branch pushremote pointers
- branch_get: return early on error
- sha1_name: refactor upstream_mark
Max Horn m...@quendi.de writes:
Thanks. Let's keep it a bit longer and see how your new
investigation (and possibly help from others) develops to a
solution.
So I had a closer look, and I now believe to now understand what
the right fix is. Simply dropping transport-helper: check for
On 21.02.2014, at 19:04, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Here is a description I wrote for a tentative commit to queue on
'pu' after seeing your response:
transport-helper.c: do not overwrite forced bit
I'd change forced bit to forced_update bit
It does not necessarily
On 19.02.2014, at 22:41, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
* fc/transport-helper-fixes (2013-12-09) 6 commits
- remote-bzr: support the new 'force' option
- test-hg.sh: tests are now expected to pass
- transport-helper: check for 'forced update' message
- transport-helper: add 'force'
Max Horn m...@quendi.de writes:
On 19.02.2014, at 22:41, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
* fc/transport-helper-fixes (2013-12-09) 6 commits
- remote-bzr: support the new 'force' option
- test-hg.sh: tests are now expected to pass
- transport-helper: check for 'forced update' message
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'.
The tip of 'next' hasn't been rewound, and none of the topics that
have been cooking there has graduated, yet. Hopefully that can
start
11 matches
Mail list logo
