Re: Git pull confusing output

e > since then. > > It is up to you if you are interested in such a feel of the level of > activity. "git fetch" (hence "git pull") would also give you a > similar "feel", e.g. "the last fetch was ~1200 objects and today's > is mere ~200, so it seems it is

Re: Git pull confusing output

. What does “counting” them means? Should I care? You vaguely recall that the last time you pushed you saw ~400 objects counted there, so you get the feeling how active you were since then. It is up to you if you are interested in such a feel of the level of activity. "git fetch" (hence

Re: Git pull confusing output

On Tue, Nov 27 2018, Will wrote: > On 27 Nov 2018, at 19:24, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> The different phases taking each one line takes up precious >> screen real estate, so another approach would be delete the line >> after one phase is finished, such that you'd only see the currently >> active

Re: Git pull confusing output

On 27 Nov 2018, at 19:24, Stefan Beller wrote: > The different phases taking each one line takes up precious > screen real estate, so another approach would be delete the line > after one phase is finished, such that you'd only see the currently > active phase (that can be useful for debugging

Re: Git pull confusing output

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:52 AM Will wrote: > And even them, do they need this info every time they push? I agree that we should make the output a bit more user friendly, which means we'd only want to output relevant data for the user. The different phases taking each one line takes up

Git pull confusing output

I’m far from being a guru, but I consider myself a competent Git user. Yet, here’s my understanding of the output of one the most-used commands, `git push`: Counting objects: 6, done. No idea what an “object” is. Apparently there’s 6 of them here. What does “counting” them means? Should I

Re: git pull --rebase=preserve is always rebasing something, even on up-to-date branch

rtion(+) > create mode 100644 a > mmatrosov@Mikhail-PC:~/test/local$ git push > Counting objects: 3, done. > Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 205 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done. > Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) > To /home/mmatrosov/test/server > * [new branch] master -> master

Re: git pull defaults for recursesubmodules

Tommi Vainikainen writes: > After reading SubmittingPatches I didn't find if I should now send a > fresh patch with > changes squashed together or new commits appended after first commit in that > patch. Patch is updated accordingly as fresh patch. (just on mechanics, not on the contents of

Re: git pull defaults for recursesubmodules

PATCH] pull: obey fetch.recurseSubmodules when fetching "git pull" now uses same recurse-submodules config for fetching as "git fetch" by default if not overridden from command line. The command line arg --recurse-submodules=no overrides fetch.recurseSubmodules configurati

Re: git pull defaults for recursesubmodules

ke 24. lokak. 2018 klo 0.57 Stefan Beller (sbel...@google.com) kirjoitti: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:04 PM Tommi Vainikainen wrote: > > I would expect that if git-config has fetch.recurseSubmodules set, > > also git pull should use this setting, or at least similar option such

Re: git pull defaults for recursesubmodules

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:04:06AM +0300, Tommi Vainikainen wrote: > I configured my local git to fetch with recurseSubmodules = on-demand, > which I found the most convenient setting. However then I noticed that > I mostly use git pull actually to fetch from remotes, but git pu

Re: git pull defaults for recursesubmodules

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:04 PM Tommi Vainikainen wrote: > > I configured my local git to fetch with recurseSubmodules = on-demand, > which I found the most convenient setting. However then I noticed that > I mostly use git pull actually to fetch from remotes, but git pull > does

git pull defaults for recursesubmodules

I configured my local git to fetch with recurseSubmodules = on-demand, which I found the most convenient setting. However then I noticed that I mostly use git pull actually to fetch from remotes, but git pull does not utilize any recurseSubmoddules setting now, or at least I could not find

Re: Work is not replayed on top while: git pull -v --rebase

The commits are lost always if both users did `git push --force` How to reproduce: 1. First user: `git push --force` 2. Second user: `git push --force` 3. First user: `git pull -v --rebase` Here after 3 I expect that git will say that after rebase some commits from current branch

Re: Work is not replayed on top while: git pull -v --rebase

As you can see I have lost some commits. Thus I wanna an option to be safe 20.09.2018, 17:38, "Junio C Hamano" : > KES writes: > >>  PS. for `git push --force` there is alternative: --force-with-lease >>  Is there something similar to --force-with-lease but f

Re: Work is not replayed on top while: git pull -v --rebase

KES writes: > PS. for `git push --force` there is alternative: --force-with-lease > Is there something similar to --force-with-lease but for `git pull -v > --rebase`? Curious. For "push", you are competing with the other pushers who want to update the repository over there

Work is not replayed on top while: git pull -v --rebase

Hi. TL;DR; Some local commits are lost while `git pull -v --rebase` [alias] tree= log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit changes = log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit --cherry-pick --boundary --left-right $ git fetch origin remote

git pull --rebase=preserve is always rebasing something, even on up-to-date branch

3/3), 205 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done. Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) To /home/mmatrosov/test/server * [new branch] master -> master mmatrosov@Mikhail-PC:~/test/local$ git pull Already up-to-date. mmatrosov@Mikhail-PC:~/test/local$ git pull --rebase=preserve Rebasing (1/1) Successful

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.19.0 round 2

Jiang Xin writes: > Hi Junio, > > The following changes since commit 2f743933341f27603550fbf383a34dfcfd38: > > Git 2.19-rc1 (2018-08-28 12:01:01 -0700) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.19.0-rnd2 > > for you to fetch changes up

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.19.0 round 2

Hi Junio, The following changes since commit 2f743933341f27603550fbf383a34dfcfd38: Git 2.19-rc1 (2018-08-28 12:01:01 -0700) are available in the Git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.19.0-rnd2 for you to fetch changes up to

[PATCH 0/1] Support git pull --rebase=i

The patch [https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/4aa8b8c82] that introduced support for pull --rebase= into the Git for Windows project still allowed the very convenient abbreviation git pull --rebase=i which was later lost when it was ported to the builtin git pull

Re: BUG: Segfault on "git pull" on "bad object HEAD"

Jeff King writes: > So I feel like the right answer here is probably this: > > diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c > index d1c05145a4..5fcaa3d0f8 100644 > --- a/wt-status.c > +++ b/wt-status.c > @@ -2340,7 +2340,16 @@ int has_uncommitted_changes(int ignore_submodules) > if

Re: BUG: Segfault on "git pull" on "bad object HEAD"

b.com:git/git.git > /tmp/git && > echo > >/tmp/git/.git/refs/heads/todo && > git -C /tmp/git pull > ) > > On this repository e.g. "git log" will print "fatal: bad object HEAD", > b

Re: BUG: Segfault on "git pull" on "bad object HEAD"

om:git/git.git > /tmp/git && > echo > >/tmp/git/.git/refs/heads/todo && > git -C /tmp/git pull > ) It took me a minute to reproduce this. It needs "pull --rebase" if you don't have that setup in yo

BUG: Segfault on "git pull" on "bad object HEAD"

git/refs/heads/todo && git -C /tmp/git pull ) On this repository e.g. "git log" will print "fatal: bad object HEAD", but for some reason "git pull" makes it this far: $ git pull Segmentation fault The immediate reason is that in run_diff_i

Re: [GIT PULL] Korean l10n updates for Git 2.18.0

Jiang Xin writes: > Hi Junio, > > The following changes since commit fd8cb379022fc6f5c6d71d12d10c9388b9f5841c: > > l10n: zh_CN: for git v2.18.0 l10n round 1 to 3 (2018-06-18 00:31:45 +0800) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po

[GIT PULL] Korean l10n updates for Git 2.18.0

Hi Junio, The following changes since commit fd8cb379022fc6f5c6d71d12d10c9388b9f5841c: l10n: zh_CN: for git v2.18.0 l10n round 1 to 3 (2018-06-18 00:31:45 +0800) are available in the Git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.18.0-rnd3.1 for you to fetch changes up to

Re: need for `git submodule update` over `git pull --recurse-submodules`?

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 8:41 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Do I need to execute any `git submodule` commands separately even if I > do `git pull --recurse-submodules`? Ideally you don't need "git submodule" commands any more, the rest of git is slowly converging to have b

need for `git submodule update` over `git pull --recurse-submodules`?

Hello. I've read [this similar question on superuser](https://superuser.com/questions/852019/git-submodule-foreach-git-pull-origin-master-vs-git-pull-recursive-submodules) but I feel my question is more basic: >From the `git pull` manpage: git pull runs git fetch with the given paramet

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.18.0 round 3

The following changes since commit 68372c88794aba15f853542008cda39def768372: Git 2.18-rc2 (2018-06-13 12:57:07 -0700) are available in the Git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.18.0-rnd3 for you to fetch changes up to fd8cb379022fc6f5c6d71d12d10c9388b9f5841c:

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] docs: reflect supported fetch options of git pull

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:05:56PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote: > A better option may be making git-pull accept those options as well. I > see no reason git-pull should support options that git-fetch does (at > least most of them). I sent this as a RFC, mostly to discuss what is the cor

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] docs: reflect supported fetch options of git pull

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:50 PM, Rafael Ascensão wrote: > `git pull` understands some options of `git fetch` which then uses in > its operation. The documentation of `git pull` doesn't reflect this > clearly, showing options that are not yet supported (e.g. `--deepen`) > and omit

[RFC PATCH 1/2] docs: reflect supported fetch options of git pull

`git pull` understands some options of `git fetch` which then uses in its operation. The documentation of `git pull` doesn't reflect this clearly, showing options that are not yet supported (e.g. `--deepen`) and omitting options that are supported (e.g. `--prune`). Make the documentation

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.17.0 round 1

Jiang Xin writes: > Would you please pull the following git l10n updates. > > The following changes since commit 0afbf6caa5b16dcfa3074982e5b48e27d452dbbb: Thanks, done.

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.17.0 round 1

Hi Junio, Would you please pull the following git l10n updates. The following changes since commit 0afbf6caa5b16dcfa3074982e5b48e27d452dbbb: Git 2.17-rc0 (2018-03-15 15:01:05 -0700) are available in the Git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.17.0-rnd1 for you to

I got a forced update after I run git pull --rebase

I can't reproduct my issue, this is my first time, but my colleague came across this issue several weeks ago. After I pushed my commit to git server without rejection. I run git pull --rebase, then I got a forced update, and my last commit is missing. I have asked a question on StackOverflow

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:49:13PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I think that is doing the right thing for half of the problem. But > > there's something else funny where we do not include the "upstream" > > commits from the split history (i.e., we rebase onto nothing, > > whereas a

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

Hi Peff, On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:33:56AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > So something like this helps: > > > > > > diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh > > > index 81c5b42875..71e6cbb388 100644 > > > ---

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:33:56AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > So something like this helps: > > > > diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh > > index 81c5b42875..71e6cbb388 100644 > > --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh > > +++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh >

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

Hi Peff, On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 06:29:55AM +0100, "Marcel 'childNo͡.de' Trautwein" > wrote: > > > shows me a quite different behavior, so solely rebase not seems the > > full problem BUT `--rebase=preserve` will .. o’man , really, is this > > intended?

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 06:29:55AM +0100, "Marcel 'childNo͡.de' Trautwein" wrote: > shows me a quite different behavior, so solely rebase not seems the full > problem > BUT > `--rebase=preserve` will .. o’man , really, is this intended? Yeah, the bug seems to be in --preserve-merges. Here's an

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

tions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 bar -bash:/tmp/2608/b.git:$ cd - /tmp/2608 -bash:/tmp/2608:$ git clone a.git c Cloning into 'c'... done. -bash:/tmp/2608:$ cd c -bash:/tmp/2608/c:$ ll total 0 drwxr-xr-x 12 marcel wheel 384B 23 Feb 05:47 .git -rw-r--r-- 1 marcel wheel 0B

Re: [BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

oday and > I put > in s.th. `git pull > g...@private.gitlab.instance.example.com:aGroup/repository.git` > > next … all committed files are zapped and the repository given has > been checked out in my home directory 勞 > > what? Shouldn’t this just fail? Why

[BUG] [git 2.16.1] yeeek ... my files are gone .. by git pull

working in a subpath of my homedir (that is a git repository itself, without any changes in worktree or index: https://bitbucket.org/childnode/marcel/ ) I wanted to clone another repository … but yeah … it’s late for me today and I put in s.th. `git pull g...@private.gitlab.instance.example.com:aGroup

Re: I'm trying to break "git pull --rebase"

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Julius Musseau <jul...@mergebase.com> wrote: > I was hoping to concoct a situation where "git pull --rebase" makes a > mess of things. It breaks quite easily with some workflows. They are all in the "don't do that" territory. Open

Re: I'm trying to break "git pull --rebase"

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Julius Musseau <jul...@mergebase.com> wrote: > Hi, Git Developers, > > I'm currently writing a blog post about "git pull --rebase". The > point of the blog post is to examine scenarios where two people are > working together on a sh

I'm trying to break "git pull --rebase"

Hi, Git Developers, I'm currently writing a blog post about "git pull --rebase". The point of the blog post is to examine scenarios where two people are working together on a short-lived feature branch, where history rewrites are allowed, and where both are using "git pull --

Re: [BUG] git pull with pull.rebase and rebase.autoStash is not working anymore in 2.16

Yeah it seems like this bug. Thank you for sharing this with me. -- Sincerely, Dimitriy Ryazantcev > Could this be the same one as reported as Git for Windows issue > #1437[1] ("`git status` reports (non-existent) modifications after > `git stash push`", 2018-01-20), fixed in Git for Windows

Re: [BUG] git pull with pull.rebase and rebase.autoStash is not working anymore in 2.16

true > > $ git config rebase.autoStash > true > > $ git status > On branch develop > Your branch is behind 'origin/develop' by 3 commits, and can be > fast-forwarded. > (use "git pull" to update your local branch) > > Changes not staged for comm

[BUG] git pull with pull.rebase and rebase.autoStash is not working anymore in 2.16

' by 3 commits, and can be fast-forwarded. (use "git pull" to update your local branch) Changes not staged for commit: (use "git add ..." to update what will be committed) (use "git checkout -- ..." to discard changes in working directory) modified: sou

regression in output of git-pull --rebase --recurse-submodules=yes --quiet

Somewhere between 2.13.6 & 2.14.1 there's an output regression. I haven't done a bisect to trace it down further yet. Specifically, --rebase --recurse-submodules=yes seems to cause --quiet to not be effective anymore. Full commandline: $ git pull --rebase --recurse-submodules --quiet In 2.

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.16.0 round 2

Hi Junio, Please pull the following git l10n updates for Git 2.16.0. The following changes since commit 36438dc19dd2a305dddebd44bf7a65f1a220075b: Git 2.16-rc1 (2018-01-05 13:45:17 -0800) are available in the Git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.16.0-rnd2 for

Re: [PATCH] git-pull: Pass -4/-6 option to git-fetch

Shuyu Wei <w...@dogben.com> writes: > The -4/-6 option should be passed through to git-fetch > to be consistent with the git-pull man page. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Shuyu <w...@dogben.com> > --- Sounds sensible. "git pull -h" output automatically gets ex

Re: Bug/Wish: bash completion for git pull --rebase doesn't include --autostash

Patch sent, please still CC me as i'm not on the list. Cheers, Albert El dimarts, 31 d’octubre de 2017, a les 18:56:22 CET, Stefan Beller va escriure: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Albert Astals Cid > > <albert.astals@kdab.com> wrote: > > git pull

Re: git pull

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... >> Which is simple. Just create a .git/hooks/prepare-commit-msg file that >> contains >> >> #!/bin/sh >> sed -i 's|ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/|git://git.kernel.org/|g' "$1" >> >> and make it executable, and git

Re: git pull

Linus Torvalds writes: > A few notes for other people who end up doing this: [this meaning use of insteadOf to redirect public URLs to ssh://git@gitolite URL] > (a) ssh is slower, and the gitolite machine is not as reachable. > > (b) it affects your merge

[PATCH] git-pull: Pass -4/-6 option to git-fetch

The -4/-6 option should be passed through to git-fetch to be consistent with the git-pull man page. Signed-off-by: Wei Shuyu <w...@dogben.com> --- builtin/pull.c | 12 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/builtin/pull.c b/builtin/pull.c index f7e2c4f2e..166b777ed

[PATCH] git-pull: Pass -4/-6 option to git-fetch

The -4/-6 option should be passed through to git-fetch to be consistent with the git-pull man page. Signed-off-by: Wei Shuyu <w...@dogben.com> --- builtin/pull.c | 12 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/builtin/pull.c b/builtin/pull.c index f7e2c4f2e..166b777ed

Re: Bug/Wish: bash completion for git pull --rebase doesn't include --autostash

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Albert Astals Cid <albert.astals@kdab.com> wrote: > git pull --rebase --autostash > > is a valid command but the --autostash autocompletion is not suggested after > typing > > git pul --reb > Would be great if that could be adde

Bug/Wish: bash completion for git pull --rebase doesn't include --autostash

git pull --rebase --autostash is a valid command but the --autostash autocompletion is not suggested after typing git pul --reb

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.15.0 round 2 with Catalan updates

Hi Junio, Please pull this last time l10n update for Git 2.15.0. It contains squash merge of [PR#267][1] and [PR#268][2]. The following changes since commit 1165e3c317b51a3f47afe1a5762b92cac695fe5c: Merge branch 'jx/zh_CN-proposed' of github.com:jiangxin/git (2017-10-24 10:11:48 +0800) are

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.15.0 round 2

El mar, 24-10-2017 a las 11:48 +0900, Junio C Hamano escribió: > > Thanks, will pull.  Nice to see a new language added to the > repertoire. > Thank you, I am very happy to be able to help the community. And bring Git a little closer to Latin America and Spain. Regards -- Christopher Díaz

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.15.0 round 2

Jiang Xin writes: > Hi Junio, > > Please pull l10n updates for Git 2.15.0. > > The following changes since commit 111ef79afe185f8731920569450f6a65320f5d5f: > > Git 2.15-rc1 (2017-10-11 14:54:04 +0900) > > are available in the Git repository at: > >

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.15.0 round 2

Hi Junio, Please pull l10n updates for Git 2.15.0. The following changes since commit 111ef79afe185f8731920569450f6a65320f5d5f: Git 2.15-rc1 (2017-10-11 14:54:04 +0900) are available in the Git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.15.0-rnd2 for you to fetch changes

Re: '--shallow-since' option is not available for git-pull in Git version 2.14.1

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:31:10PM +0900, Sanggyu Nam wrote: > I’ve found that some subcommands such as git-clone, git-fetch, and > git-pull support an option named ‘--shallow-since’, as of Git version > 2.11. This option is documented in the man page of each subcommand. In > Git

'--shallow-since' option is not available for git-pull in Git version 2.14.1

I’ve found that some subcommands such as git-clone, git-fetch, and git-pull support an option named ‘--shallow-since’, as of Git version 2.11. This option is documented in the man page of each subcommand. In Git 2.14.1, I’ve checked that the option is available for git-clone and git-fetch so

[PATCHv3 0/2] fix recurse.submodule config for git pull

Changes since v2: - Add a patch that fixes the option parsing order (parse config before cli, not the other way around) - Enhance the tests to check --recurse-submodule and submodule.recurse combinations Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin (2): pull: fix cli and config option parsing order pull:

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.14.0 round 2

Hi Junio, Would you please pull the following git l10n updates. The following changes since commit 91d443d0d8dd942dcfc322ea200edddb9cef2b4e: l10n: git.pot: v2.14.0 round 2 (9 new, 2 removed) (2017-07-24 22:00:44 +0800) are available in the git repository at:

Performance improvement for git pull rebase and autostash

Sorry, the max characters per line restriction of the e-mail broke the workflow. Here it is again. git pull rebase = true or preserve

Performance improvement for git pull rebase and autostash

Hi, I have some suggestions to improve performance of 'git pull --rebase'. 1. If I have no new local commits "git pull --rebase" will do a fast forward merge. But if I have changes to local files I have to stash them also if they are not affected by the new commits from origi

Re: speeding up git pull from a busy gerrit instance over a slow link?

On 2017/06/30 11:59 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: Out of curiosity, what is the timestamp difference between the first and last GIT_TRACE_PACKET log message containing "refs/changes"? Cut down log looks like: 08:37:17.734527 pkt-line.c:80 packet:fetch<

Re: speeding up git pull from a busy gerrit instance over a slow link?

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: > Hi > > I'm running git version 2.13.1 on Ubuntu 16.04 (x64) > > I'm connecting over a very slow (international link) to a very busy gerrit > server (gerrit.libreoffice.org) using ssh. > Ping types are on the order of 200ms.

Re: speeding up git pull from a busy gerrit instance over a slow link?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:28:15 +0200 Noel Grandin wrote: > - > snippet of packet trace > --- > > 14:20:45.705091 pkt-line.c:80 packet:fetch< > c5b026801c729ab37e2af6a610f31ca2e28b51fe > refs/changes/99/29099/2 >

speeding up git pull from a busy gerrit instance over a slow link?

Hi I'm running git version 2.13.1 on Ubuntu 16.04 (x64) I'm connecting over a very slow (international link) to a very busy gerrit server (gerrit.libreoffice.org) using ssh. Ping types are on the order of 200ms. Using GIT_TRACE_PACKET=true, what I am seeing is that the bulk of the time is

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.13.0 round 2.1

Jiang Xin writes: > Merged another l10n contribution, please pull the new tag > l10n-2.13.0-rnd2.1 (old tag is deleted): Yeah, I see our mails crossed. Will pull. Thanks!

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.13.0 round 2

Jiang Xin writes: > Hi Junio, > > I can not send email outside at work, but now I am back home. Here is > the pull request: > > The following changes since commit 4fa66c85f11bc5a541462ca5ae3246aa0ce02e74: > > Git 2.13-rc2 (2017-05-04 16:27:19 +0900) > > are available

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.13.0 round 2.1

Hi Junio, Merged another l10n contribution, please pull the new tag l10n-2.13.0-rnd2.1 (old tag is deleted): The following changes since commit 4fa66c85f11bc5a541462ca5ae3246aa0ce02e74: Git 2.13-rc2 (2017-05-04 16:27:19 +0900) are available in the git repository at:

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.13.0 round 2

Hi Junio, I can not send email outside at work, but now I am back home. Here is the pull request: The following changes since commit 4fa66c85f11bc5a541462ca5ae3246aa0ce02e74: Git 2.13-rc2 (2017-05-04 16:27:19 +0900) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po

Re: Possible bug: git pull --rebase discards local commits

Hi Junio, On 23/08/2016 21:28, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Joshua Phillips <jphill...@imap.cc> writes: > > I've found a case where git pull --rebase discards commits in my branch > > if the remote-tracking branch was rewound (and the remote tracking > > branch's reflog

Re: git email From: parsing (was Re: [GIT PULL] Staging/IIO driver patches for 4.11-rc1)

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:03:45PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > The problem isn't on the applying end, but rather on the generating end. > > The From header in the attached mbox is: > > > > From: =?us-ascii?B?PT9VVEYtOD9xP1NpbW9uPTIwU2FuZHN0cj1DMz1CNm0/PQ==?= > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.12.0

Jiang Xin writes: > Hi Junio, > > Please pull l10n updates for Git 2.12.0: > > The following changes since commit 076c05393a047247ea723896289b48d6549ed7d0: > > Hopefully the final batch of mini-topics before the final > (2017-02-16 14:46:35 -0800) > > are available in

[GIT PULL] l10n updates for 2.12.0

Hi Junio, Please pull l10n updates for Git 2.12.0: The following changes since commit 076c05393a047247ea723896289b48d6549ed7d0: Hopefully the final batch of mini-topics before the final (2017-02-16 14:46:35 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po

Re: git email From: parsing (was Re: [GIT PULL] Staging/IIO driver patches for 4.11-rc1)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:04:44AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >> > Poor Simon Sandström. >> > >> > Funnily enough, this only exists for one commit. You've got several >> > other commits from Simon that get his name right. >> > >> >

Re: git email From: parsing (was Re: [GIT PULL] Staging/IIO driver patches for 4.11-rc1)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:17:02AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:04:44AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > I don't know what happened, I used git for this, I don't use quilt for > > "normal" patches accepted into my trees anymore, only for stable kernel > > work. > > > > So

Re: git email From: parsing (was Re: [GIT PULL] Staging/IIO driver patches for 4.11-rc1)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:04:44AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > Poor Simon Sandström. > > > > Funnily enough, this only exists for one commit. You've got several > > other commits from Simon that get his name right. > > > > What happened? > > I don't know what happened, I used git for this, I

git email From: parsing (was Re: [GIT PULL] Staging/IIO driver patches for 4.11-rc1)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > =?UTF-8?q?Simon=20Sandstr=C3=B6m?= (1): > > staging: vt6656: Add missing identifier names > > Wow, your scripts really screwed up that name.

Fail git pull --rebase when local merges present? (was: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.11.1)

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > * "git pull --rebase", when there is no new commits on our side since >we forked from the upstream, should be able to fast-forward without >invoking "git rebase", but it didn't

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote:>> This sounds interesting to me! When I have some more time to take a >> look at this i might see if I can revive it. > > Can the terminology please be standardized to what > was once called bylines? > >

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 15:42 -0800, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:43:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow > > > > work well with the

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:43:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow >> > work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of >> > inventing yet

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

> > I didn't know about trailers before. As I undestand it, I could use > > "Tested-by" as the key, and the commit subject as the value. This list > > then could be parsed and brought into proper output shape. It would > > simplify the subject parsing, but most things my AWK script currently > >

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:43:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow > > work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of > > inventing yet another parser of trailers. > > > > In its current shape,

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

Wolfram Sang writes: > I didn't know about trailers before. As I undestand it, I could use > "Tested-by" as the key, and the commit subject as the value. This list > then could be parsed and brought into proper output shape. It would > simplify the subject parsing, but most

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

> So the idea is to have list of those whose names appear on > Reviewed-by: and Tested-by: collected and listed after the list of > commit titles and author names. I personally do not see much > downsides in doing so, but I do not consume that many PRs myself, so > let's hear from those who

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow > work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of > inventing yet another parser of trailers. > > In its current shape,

Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

Wolfram Sang writes: > === new stuff starts here > > with much appreciated quality assurance from > > Andy Shevchenko (1): > (Rev.) i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC > > Benjamin Tissoires (1): >

[RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

Asking for opinions on lkml and git... Getting enough quality assurance is likely one of the bigger upcoming tasks in the near future. To improve the situation, praise the people already doing that by adding their names to pull requests in the same manner that patch authors are credited. Here is

Re: Bug report: Git pull hang occasionally

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Kai Zhang writes: > >>> On Dec 21, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> >>> Junio C Hamano writes: >>> ... >>> >>> I wonder if the latter is solved

Re: Bug report: Git pull hang occasionally

Kai Zhang writes: >> On Dec 21, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> ... >> >> I wonder if the latter is solved by recent patch 296b847c0d >> ("remote-curl: don't hang when a server dies before any

Re: Bug report: Git pull hang occasionally

Hi Junio, After apply this patch, hanging did not happen again. Would this patch go to release in near future? Thanks. Regards, Kai > On Dec 21, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> And the unexpected discrepancy is

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >