Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/25/2015 05:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com writes:
This *is* documented, but I'm curious why this distinction is made.
I think it is from mere laziness, and also in a smaller degree
coming from an
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com wrote:
Jokes apart, I'm not sure the chances of *both* those things happening
-- an accidental hash-like string in the text *and* it matching an
existing hash -- are high enough to bother. If it can be done without
too much
On 07/03/2015 11:06 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/25/2015 05:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com writes:
This *is* documented, but I'm curious why this distinction is made.
I think it is from mere laziness, and
Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com writes:
This *is* documented, but I'm curious why this distinction is made.
I think it is from mere laziness, and also in a smaller degree
coming from an expectation that --stdin would be fed by another
script like rev-list where feeding full 40-hex is less
On 06/25/2015 05:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Sitaram Chamarty sitar...@gmail.com writes:
This *is* documented, but I'm curious why this distinction is made.
I think it is from mere laziness, and also in a smaller degree
coming from an expectation that --stdin would be fed by another
Hi all,
git name-rev does not accept abbreviated SHAs if --stdin is used,
though it works when the SHA is given directly on the command line:
$ git version
git version 2.4.3
$ git name-rev --tags d73f544
d73f544 tags/v3.6.3~29
$ git name-rev --tags --stdin d73f544
6 matches
Mail list logo
