Re: [PATCH] contrib/subtree: fix "subtree split" skipped-merge bug.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Dave Ware wrote: > [PATCH] contrib/subtree: fix "subtree split" skipped-merge bug. As an aid for reviewers, please indicate the version of this patch submission. For instance, this is the second attempt, so the subject would be

[PATCH 1/2] gitk: match ttk fonts to gitk fonts

The fonts set in setoptions aren't consistently picked up by ttk, who uses its own predefined fonts. This is noticeable when switching between using and not using ttk with custom fonts or in HiDPI settings (where the default TTK fonts do _not_ respect tk sclaing). Fix by mapping the ttk fontset

[PATCH 2/2] gitk: let .bleft.mid widgets 'breathe'

The widgets on top of the diff window are very tightly packed. Make them breathe a little by adding an 'i'-spaced padding between them. Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bilotta --- gitk | 8 ++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gitk b/gitk

Re: [PATCH 0/2] gitk spacing/sizing tuning for HiDPI

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > Both patches are missing your Signed-off-by:. Doh sorry, resending now. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to

Post-receive hook for "git pull"

I have a system here where it can be quite common to have thousands of branches in the remote repository, and where I'd like to update some local state according to the appearance of new branches (or updates of pre-existing ones). Currently, I use a "git for-each-ref" after pulling and then check

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #01; Tue, 1)

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:31:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:11:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: [snip] > > "--keep-empty" has always been about keeping an originally empty > > commit, not a commit that becomes empty because of rebasing > > (i.e. what has already been

rebase has no --verify-signatures

Hi, The git merge command has a --verify-signatures flag, which, when set, checks that the commits to be merged have trusted GPG signatures. git pull also knows this flag and forwards it to the merge command. However, doing a git pull --rebase --verify-signatures silently ignores it, since

git branch in Bash subshell "$(git branch -a)" including ls output as part of return?

Hello Folks, I am Running OSX 10.10.5 Yosemite along with git 2.6.3 installed via homebrew package manager. I recently stumbled across the following bug in some scripting I was doing. "git branch -a --list" and "git branch -a" seem to include the output of an "ls" command if executed as part of

Re: git branch in Bash subshell "$(git branch -a)" including ls output as part of return?

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:52:28AM -0500, Alex Jones wrote: > git branch -a output: > > ajonespro:Deploy_Script ajones$ git branch -a > > * DWH_concurrent_api > Email_No_Error_If_No_Old_Version > IT/configs_in_app_support > PHP_Build_Repo > master > remotes/origin/DWH_concurrent_api >

[PATCH v7] ls-files: Add eol diagnostics

When working in a cross-platform environment, a user wants to check if text files are stored normalized in the repository and if .gitattributes are set appropriately. Make it possible to let Git show the line endings in the index and in the working tree and the effective text/eol attributes. The

Hello Friend,

Please confirm receipt of my previous mail? When and What time can I call you? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH/RFC 07/10] ref-filter: introduce align_atom_parser()

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Karthik Nayak wrote: >> Introduce align_atom_parser() which will parse 'align' atoms and store >> the required width and position into the 'used_atom'

Re: git branch in Bash subshell "$(git branch -a)" including ls output as part of return?

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 04:58:10PM +, Charles Bailey wrote: > > Looking at the two outputs, you are seeing the shell's glob expansion of > the '*' current branch marker. You probably want to quote the command > expansion to prevent this: > > echo "$(git branch -a)" Pressing send has, of

Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/8] update-index: add untracked cache notifications

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Christian Couder wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >>> --- a/builtin/update-index.c >>> +++ b/builtin/update-index.c >>> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int

Re: [PATCH 0/2] format-patch: introduce option to suppress commit hashes

"brian m. carlson" writes: > The hash of the source file isn't generally as much of a problem, > because the patch tends to change, even incidentally (line numbers and > such), when the hash of the file changes. It's also something that we > have in our history,

Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/8] update-index: add untracked cache notifications

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Christian Couder > wrote: >> Doing: >> >> cd /tmp >> git --git-dir=/git/somewhere/else/.git update-index --untracked-cache >> >> doesn't work how one would

Re: [RFC/PATCH 8/8] update-index: make core.untrackedCache a bool

(Sorry I already sent a private reply to Tosten by mistake.) On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > On 01.12.15 21:31, Christian Couder wrote: >> Most features in Git can be enabled or disabled using a simple >> bool config variable and it would be nice if

Problems installing git-for-windows

Hi, I've just downloaded git-for-windows. It uninstalled an earlier version that I had (about 5 years old) and I got some problems. 1) It wanted to install into my User directory instead of the Program Files directory, which is the best place for all programs. The installer told me that this

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #01; Tue, 1)

Patrick Steinhardt writes: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:31:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:11:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > [snip] >> > "--keep-empty" has always been about keeping an originally empty >> > commit, not a commit that becomes empty

Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: add an option to suppress commit hash

"brian m. carlson" writes: > Oftentimes, patches created by git format-patch will be stored in > version control or compared with diff. In these cases, two otherwise > identical patches can have different commit hashes, leading to diff > noise. Teach git

Re: Problems installing git-for-windows

Hi Peter, On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Peter Toye wrote: > Thanks - sorry I didn't report the version number - it was 2.6.3 as you > suggested. I didn't realise that development was so active. Do yo know > when the next version will be stable or should I go for an earlier > version? I am "side-tracked"

Re: [PATCH] clean: new option --exclude-from

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 07:51:03PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > In any case, what we've been discussing may be an interesting and > potentially important tangent, but it still is a tangent while > evaluating the patch in question. I do not think I'd be using the > new "--exclude-from=" option

Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: add an option to suppress commit hash

Junio C Hamano writes: >> +--no-hash:: >> + Output an all-zero hash in each patch's From header instead >> + of the hash of the commit. >> + > > Two (big) problems with the option name. > > - "--no-something" would mislead people to think you are removing >something,

Re: Post-receive hook for "git pull"

Stefan Monnier writes: > I have a system here where it can be quite common to have thousands of > branches in the remote repository, and where I'd like to update some > local state according to the appearance of new branches (or updates of > pre-existing ones). > >

Re: Multiple fetches when unshallowing a shallow clone

I should point out that I never saw a "deepen 0" line. Rather, I saw git send "option depth 0" to the remote helper. Duy, you mentioned that depth=0 means "do not change depth". I assume that means the server should use exactly the shallows that the client sent, and it does not need to traverse

Re: [PATCH v7] ls-files: Add eol diagnostics

From: "Torsten Bögershausen" When working in a cross-platform environment, a user wants to check if text files are stored normalized in the repository and if .gitattributes are set appropriately. The need for this came up again on the Git Users list

Re: Git 2.3.7 hangs on fetch but not clone

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 05:12:12PM -0500, Randall S. Becker wrote: > I have some strange behaviour I am trying to diagnose on the NonStop port of > git 2.3.7. The situation is we have a *LARGE* cloned repository with some > local modifications of openssl, which we are trying to clone again for a

Re: [PATCH v7] ls-files: Add eol diagnostics

On Monday, December 7, 2015, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > When working in a cross-platform environment, a user wants to > check if text files are stored normalized in the repository and if > .gitattributes are set appropriately.[...] A few style comments this time around... >

Re: [PATCH v2] revision.c: fix possible null pointer access

Stefan Naewe writes: > mark_tree_uninteresting dereferences a tree pointer before checking > if the pointer is valid. Fix that by doing the check first. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Naewe > --- I still have a problem with "dereferences", as

Re: Can't get 'git archive' to work

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 09:31:06PM -0800, Yuri wrote: > Why "operation is not supported" through http and https? 'archive' is > supposed to be the most efficient operation to get the specific snapshot of > the repository, and it should be available without authentication. Remote git-archive is

Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: pass tag name via stdin without newline

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:55:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Eric N. Vander Weele" writes: > > > "git filter-branch --tag-name-filter" fails when the user-provided > > command attempts to trivially append text to the originally tag name, > > passed via stdin, due to an

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #02; Fri, 4)

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 10:12:18AM -0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > Hi, Junio, Jeff! > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > * ec/annotate-deleted (2015-11-20) 1 commit > > - annotate: skip checking working tree if a revision is provided > > > >

[PATCH] contrib/subtree: fix "subtree split" skipped-merge bug.

A bug occurs in 'git-subtree split' where a merge is skipped even when both parents act on the subtree, provided the merge results in a tree identical to one of the parents. Fix by copying the merge if at least one parent is non-identical, and the non-identical parent is not an ancestor of the

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clean: new option --exclude-from

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 09:58:26AM -0500, James wrote: > +test_expect_success 'git clean -e --exclude-from' ' > + rm -fr repo && > + mkdir repo && > + cd repo && > + git init && > + touch known 1 2 3 && > + git add known && > + echo 1 >> .git/clean-exclude && > +

Re: git subtree bug produces divergent descendants

Thanks for taking the time to look over it. I'm not familiar with the process here. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > Tests don't automatically return to the directory prior to the 'cd', > so when this test ends, the current directory will still be >

Re: best practices against long git rebase times?

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 05:43:45PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 15:31:03 +, John Keeping wrote: > ... > > I'm pretty sure that you're right and the cherry-pick analysis is where > > the time is spent. > > But I'm pretty surprised as to the amount of CPU time that goes

Why does send-pack call pack-objects for all remote refs?

I have a repository which has ~2000 branches on the remote, and it takes ~8 seconds to push a change to one ref. The majority of this time is spent in pack-object. I wrote a hack so that only the ref being updated would be packed (the normal behavior is to pack for every ref on the remote).  

Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/3] ls-files/dir: use is_git_repo to detect submodules

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 05:59:26PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:37:44 +, Jeff King wrote: > ... > > Hrm. Weird. You'd think it would break with the existing code if I do > > this, then: > > > ... > > - (cd a/b/c; git init) && > > + (cd a/b/c; git

Re: Multiple fetches when unshallowing a shallow clone

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Jason Paller-Rzepka wrote: > Duy, you mentioned that depth=0 means "do not change depth". I assume that > means the server should use exactly the shallows that the client sent, and > it does not need to traverse the tree or modify the shallow

Re: Multiple fetches when unshallowing a shallow clone

Jeff King writes: > I think one thing I was missing is that we need to just grab the > _object_, but we need to realize that the ref needs updating[1]. So we > cannot skip backfill of any tag that we do not already have, even if we > already have the tag object. > ... > [1] I'm

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] modernize t7300

James writes: > From: James Rouzier > > --- Missing sign-off. > t/t7300-clean.sh | 382 > +++ > 1 file changed, 190 insertions(+), 192 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t7300-clean.sh b/t/t7300-clean.sh

Re: Multiple fetches when unshallowing a shallow clone

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 01:27:51PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I think one thing I was missing is that we need to just grab the > > _object_, but we need to realize that the ref needs updating[1]. So we > > cannot skip backfill of any tag that we do not

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clean: new option --exclude-from

James writes: > +static int exclude_from_cb(const struct option *opt, > + const char *arg, int unset) > +{ > + struct dir_struct *dir = opt->value; > + add_excludes_from_file(dir, arg); I suspect this is wrong.

Re: [PATCH v2] revision.c: fix possible null pointer access

Am 07.12.2015 um 21:31 schrieb Junio C Hamano: Stefan Naewe writes: mark_tree_uninteresting dereferences a tree pointer before checking if the pointer is valid. Fix that by doing the check first. Signed-off-by: Stefan Naewe --- I still have

Re: Why does send-pack call pack-objects for all remote refs?

Daniel Koverman writes: > I have a repository which has ~2000 branches on the remote, and it > takes ~8 seconds to push a change to one ref. The majority of this > time is spent in pack-object. I wrote a hack so that only the ref > being updated would be

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] modernize t7300

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:58 AM, James wrote: > From: James Rouzier This would be a good place to explain how you are modernizing the test script. Right now, you're just updating to take advantage of test_path_is_foo(), but some other modernizations you

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] modernize t7300

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > James writes: >> @@ -46,15 +46,15 @@ test_expect_success 'git clean' ' >> mkdir -p build docs && >> touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so && >> git clean && >> -

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] modernize t7300

Eric Sunshine writes: > Alternately, update test_path_foo() functions to accept multiple > pathnames, or is that too ugly? That actually would have been my first choice, except (1) that path_is_missing has a cruft whose usefulness is dubious, and (2) that "path_exists A

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clean: new option --exclude-from

In addition to Peff's and Junio's review comments... On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:58 AM, James wrote: > From: James Rouzier > > Specify a file to read for exclude patterns. Missing Signed-off-by:. > --- > diff --git a/t/t7300-clean.sh b/t/t7300-clean.sh > @@

Re: best practices against long git rebase times?

Jeff King writes: > You're computing the patch against the parent for each of those 3000 > commits (to get a hash of it to compare against the single hash on the > other side). Twelve minutes sounds long, but if you have a really > gigantic tree, it might not be unreasonable. > >

Re: Why does send-pack call pack-objects for all remote refs?

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:41:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Also it was unclear if you are working with a shallow repository. > The performance trade-off made between the packsize and the cycles > is somewhat different between a normal and a shallow repository, > e.g. 2dacf26d

Re: best practices against long git rebase times?

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:56:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > You're computing the patch against the parent for each of those 3000 > > commits (to get a hash of it to compare against the single hash on the > > other side). Twelve minutes sounds long,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] setup.c: re-fix d95138e (setup: set env $GIT_WORK_TREE when ..

Duy Nguyen writes: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy > wrote: >> The solution in d95138e is reverted in this commit. Instead we reuse the >> solution from c056261 [4]. c056261 fixes another setup-messed-up-by-alias >> by saving and

Re: Problems installing git-for-windows

+cc Johannes IIUC Git-for-Windows specific issues are handled in https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues instead of this mailing list. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Peter Toye wrote: > Hi, > > I've just downloaded git-for-windows. It uninstalled an earlier > version that

Re: [PATCH 1/2] git-p4: support multiple depot paths in p4 submit

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015, Lars Schneider wrote: > Thanks for the patch! Do you see a way to demonstrate the bug in a test case > similar to t9821 [1]? Not yet, I'm afraid. It's proving trickier than expected because for now I can only reproduce the bug when the view uses multiples depots

Re: best practices against long git rebase times?

Jeff King writes: > I think you missed John's earlier response which gave several pointers > to such caching schemes. :) Yeah, you're right. > > I used to run with patch-id-caching in my personal fork (I frequently > use "git log --cherry-mark" to see what has made it upstream),

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #02; Fri, 4)

Jeff King writes: > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 10:12:18AM -0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > >> Hi, Junio, Jeff! >> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > * ec/annotate-deleted (2015-11-20) 1 commit >> > - annotate: skip checking

Re: Problems installing git-for-windows

Hi Peter, On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Peter Toye wrote: > 1) It wanted to install into my User directory instead of the > Program Files directory, which is the best place for all programs. There has been a regression in Git for Windows 2.6.3 (please *always* state the version when reporting bugs) that

Re: git branch in Bash subshell "$(git branch -a)" including ls output as part of return?

That did the trick, thanks for the help and the suggestion. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Charles Bailey wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 04:58:10PM +, Charles Bailey wrote: >> >> Looking at the two outputs, you are seeing the shell's glob expansion of >> the '*'

Re: [PATCH 3/2] git.c: make sure we do not leak GIT_* to alias scripts

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > Let's hope there will be no third report about this commit.. Hmm, why does this additional test fail only under prove but pass without it? > diff --git a/t/t0001-init.sh b/t/t0001-init.sh > index f91bbcf..19539fc 100755 > --- a/t/t0001-init.sh

Re: [PATCH 13/16] init: allow alternate backends to be set for new repos

On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 02:44 -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 07:30:13AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:35 AM, David Turner > > wrote: > > > git init learns a new argument --refs-backend-type. Presently, only > > > "files" is

Re: rebase has no --verify-signatures

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:00:15PM +0100, Alexander 'z33ky' Hirsch wrote: > Is there any technical reason why rebase should not have a > --verify-signatures flag? I have written a patch to git-rebase--am > which enables it to do such a check. If there is no reason not to > include it I'd add

Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: add an option to suppress commit hash

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:34:59AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Two (big) problems with the option name. > > - "--no-something" would mislead people to think you are removing >something, not replacing it with something else. This option >does the latter (i.e. the first line of your