RE: Automatic core.autocrlf?

On August 30, 2018 11:29 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > > > My original plan was to try to "make obsolete"/retire and phase out > > core.autocrlf completely. > > However, since e.g. egit/jgit uses it > > (they don't have support for .gitattributes at all) I am not

RE: git 2.16.0 segfaults on clone of specific repo

On January 18, 2018 10:06 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:47 PM, brian m. carlson > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 07:15:56PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Александр Булаев > >>

RE: [RFE/RFC] format-patch/diff via path

On January 20, 2018 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> writes: > > > I’m still a bit perplexed by some behaviour seen today, and am looking > > for a clean way to deal with it that the documentation does not make > &

[RFE/RFC] format-patch/diff via path

I’m still a bit perplexed by some behaviour seen today, and am looking for a clean way to deal with it that the documentation does not make clear. So, I’m asking in a different way. Suppose a graph of A---B---C---D---E \ \ / \F—G/ When trying to perform a

RE: [RFC PATCH] NonStop port changes for git 2.16.0.

On January 18, 2018 7:11 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18 2018, Stefan Beller jotted: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:42 PM, wrote: > >> Further: there are 6 known breakages that have been reported. The > >> perl issues relating to completion codes

RE: [Nit] Lots of enumerated type warnings

On January 22, 2018 6:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> writes: > > > Here are a few examples, there are more: > > > > auto_crlf = git_config_bool(var, value); > > ^ > >

RE: [PATCH v2 0/6] Force pipes to flush immediately on NonStop platform

On January 22, 2018 5:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:33:59PM -0500, randall.s.bec...@rogers.com > wrote: > >> From: "Randall S. Becker" <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> > >

RE: [Nit] Lots of enumerated type warnings

On January 22, 2018 5:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> writes: > > > I'm seeing an increase in the enumerated type warnings coming from my > > use of the c99 compiler for compiling git over time (loads more for > &

RE: [PATCH v2 0/6] Force pipes to flush immediately on NonStop platform

On January 23, 2018 1:13 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> writes: > > >> IOW, I do not see it explained clearly why this change is needed on > >> any single platform---so "that issue may be shared by othe

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On February 28, 2018 12:44 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Randall S. Becker wrote: > > > The problem is actually in git code in its test suite that uses perl > > inline, not in my test code itself. The difficulty I'm having is > > placing this appropriate so that the

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On February 28, 2018 1:52 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Randall S. Becker wrote: > > On February 28, 2018 12:44 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Randall S. Becker wrote: > > >>> The problem is actually in git code in its test suite that uses perl > &g

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On February 28, 2018 3:04 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > On February 28, 2018 1:52 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Randall S. Becker wrote: > > > On February 28, 2018 12:44 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> Randall S. Becker wrote: > > > > >>> Th

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On March 1, 2018 2:36 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:51:14PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > > > I would look into putting it into a module and then using the PERL5OPT > > environment var to have it loaded automagically in any of your perl > > scripts. > > > > For instance if you put

RE: [bug] git stash push {dir-pathspec} wipes untracked files

> -Original Message- > From: git-ow...@vger.kernel.org On Behalf > Of Junio C Hamano > Sent: March 15, 2018 12:52 PM > To: Jake Stine > Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [bug] git stash push {dir-pathspec} wipes untracked files > >

RE: Why don't we symlink libexec/git-core/* to bin/git?

On March 13, 2018 2:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > > > Related to this, I came across this bug report > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/issues/3265 which is > > wondering why we're installing N copies of the git binary,

RE: How to undo previously set configuration?

On April 5, 2018 7:21 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05 2018, Olaf Hering wrote: > > > Am Thu, 05 Apr 2018 10:42:15 +0200 > > schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason : > > > >> I've been meaning to work on this but haven't figured out a good syntax > for it

RE: [PATCH v4] json_writer: new routines to create data in JSON format

On March 27, 2018 1:43 PM, Wink Saville wrote: > > the leading spaces are required in this case. > > the pretty json output contains 8 spaces for that sub-structure not a tab. > > is there a preferred way to denote this in the test script? > > > > Jeff > > I've used "git diff --check" which I got

RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.17.0

On April 2, 2018 3:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The latest feature release Git v2.17.0 is now available at the usual places. > It is > comprised of 516 non-merge commits since v2.16.0, contributed by 71 > people, 20 of which are new faces. Just a heads up. I think this one might have gotten

RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.17.0

On April 2, 2018 4:02 PM, Stefan Beller found my change: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Randall S. Becker > <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> wrote: > > On April 2, 2018 3:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> The latest feature release Git v2.17.0 is now availab

RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.17.0

On April 2, 2018 7:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > To: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> > Cc: Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com>; git <git@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.17.0 > > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > &g

RE: [RFC] git clone add option to track all remote branches

On April 1, 2018 11:22 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > If you are really doing your own development, then you would have some > > topic branches of your own, with forks of some (but most likely not > > all, especiallyi when there are many branches at the

RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.17.0

On April 2, 2018 3:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.17.0 > > The latest feature release Git v2.17.0 is now available at the usual places. > It is > comprised of 516 non-merge commits since v2.16.0, contributed by 71 > people, 20 of which are new faces. The NonStop

RE: [PATCH 0/3] git worktree prune improvements

On March 2, 2018 10:39 PM, Nguy?n Thái Ng?c Duy wrote: > This is something we could do to improve the situation when a user manually > moves a worktree and not follow the update process (we have had the first > reported case [1]). Plus a bit cleanup in gc. > > I think this is something we should

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On February 28, 2018 2:49 AM, Peff wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 07:42:51AM +, Eric Wong wrote: > > > > > > a) We could override the meaning of die() in Git.pm. This feels > > > > > ugly but if it works, it would be a very small patch. > > > > > > > > Unlikely to work since I think

[Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

Hi all, After months of arguing with some platform developers on this subject, the perl spec was held over my head repeatedly about a few lines that are causing issues. The basic problem is this line (test-lib-functions.sh, line 633, still in ffa952497) >elif test $exit_code -gt 129 &&

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On February 28, 2018 11:46 AM, demerphq wrote: > On 28 February 2018 at 08:49, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 07:42:51AM +, Eric Wong wrote: > > > >> > > > a) We could override the meaning of die() in Git.pm. This feels > >> > > > ugly but if it works, it

RE: [Problem] test_must_fail makes possibly questionable assumptions about exit_code.

On February 28, 2018 12:19 PM, demerphq wrote: > On 28 February 2018 at 18:10, Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> > wrote: > > On February 28, 2018 11:46 AM, demerphq wrote: > >> On 28 February 2018 at 08:49, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > >>

RE: [RFE] Please add name and email to git credentials

On November 1, 2018 10:13 AM, Christian Couder wrote: > Sent: > To: nicolas.mail...@laposte.net > Cc: git > Subject: Re: [RFE] Please add name and email to git credentials > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:31 PM Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: > > > > Le jeudi 01 novembre 2018 à 12:22 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð

RE: [PATCH 1/1] poll: use GetTickCount64() to avoid wrap-around issues

On November 4, 2018 6:26 PM, Junio C Hamano, wrote: > Johannes Sixt writes: > > > Am 03.11.18 um 09:14 schrieb Carlo Arenas: > >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:44 AM Johannes Sixt wrote: > >>> > >>> + timeout = elapsed >= orig_timeout ? 0 : (int)(orig_timeout - > >>> + elapsed); > >> > >>

RE: Git for games working group

On September 23, 2018 3:54 PM, John Austin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 10:57 AM Randall S. Becker > wrote: > > I would even like to help with your effort and have non-unixy platforms I'd > like to do this on. > > Having this separate from git LFS is an even better

RE: Git for games working group

On September 23, 2018 1:29 PM, John Austin wrote: > I've been putting together a prototype file-locking implementation for a > system that plays better with git. What are everyone's thoughts on > something like the following? I'm tentatively labeling this system git-sync or > sync-server. There

RE: [RFC] git clean --local

On December 2, 2018 8:26, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 01 2018, Cameron Boehmer wrote: > > > 1) add a new flag > > -l, --local > > Do not consult git config --global core.excludesFile in > > determining what files git ignores. This is useful in conjunction with > > -x/-X to

RE: Git Tags

On November 29, 2018 6:56, Mateusz Loskot wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 12:50, Stefanie Leisestreichler > wrote: > > > > git tag -a 0.9.0 > > git push origin master > > > > In my local repository, when I run "git tag" it is showing me "0.9.0". > > > > Then I did (on box B) > > git clone

RE: Cygwin Git with Windows paths

> -Original Message- > From: git-ow...@vger.kernel.org On Behalf Of > Junio C Hamano > Sent: November 18, 2018 19:07 > To: Torsten Bögershausen > Cc: Steven Penny ; git@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Cygwin Git with Windows paths > > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > > > And it may even

RE: [Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files

> -Original Message- > From: git-ow...@vger.kernel.org On Behalf > Of Johannes Sixt > Sent: September 12, 2018 4:48 PM > To: Randall S. Becker > Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files > > A

[Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files

I feel really bad asking this, and I should know the answer, and yet. I have a binary file that needs to go into a repo intact (unchanged). I also have a program that interprets the contents, like a textconv, that can output the relevant portions of the file in whatever format I like - used for

RE: [Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files

On September 12, 2018 4:54 PM, I wrote: > On September 12, 2018 4:48 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > Am 12.09.18 um 21:16 schrieb Randall S. Becker: > > > I feel really bad asking this, and I should know the answer, and yet. > > > > > > I have a binary file

RE: [Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files

On September 12, 2018 7:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" writes: > > >> author is important to our process. My objective is to keep the > >> original file 100% exact as supplied and then ignore any changes to > >> the met

[Question] Alternative to git-lfs under go

Hi All, Does anyone know whether it is practical to rework git-lfs under a language other than "go"? GCC is not even close to being possible to port to my NonStop platform (may have tried, some have died - joke - trying). I would like to convert this directly to C or something more widely

RE: [Question] Alternative to git-lfs under go

On September 17, 2018 3:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Randall S. Becker wrote: > > > Does anyone know whether it is practical to rework git-lfs under a > > language other than "go"? GCC is not even close to being possible to > > port to my NonStop platform (may

RE: [Question] Alternative to git-lfs under go

On September 17, 2018 6:01 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:55:55PM -0400, Randall S. Becker wrote: > > On September 17, 2018 3:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > > Randall S. Becker wrote: > > > > > > > Does anyone know whether

RE: Git for games working group

On September 17, 2018 11:58 AM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > wrote: > > > 2. Multi-file locks, e.g., "I need to lock file(s) X, Y, and Z > > > together." This isn't possible in Git LFS today with the existing "git > > > lfs

RE: [Question] Alternative to git-lfs under go

On September 17, 2018 6:02 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Randall S. Becker wrote: > > On September 17, 2018 3:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Randall S. Becker wrote: > > >>> Does anyone know whether it is practical to rework git-lfs under a > >>> la

RE: Git for games working group

On September 17, 2018 9:55 AM Taylor Blau wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 04:55:13PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > In the hypothetical git-annex-like case (simplifying a bit for the > > purposes this explanation), for every FILE in your tree you have a > > corresponding FILE.lock

RE: [Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files

On September 13, 2018 1:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > "Randall S. Becker" writes: > > > >> The scenario is slightly different. > >> 1. Person A gives me a new binary file-1 with fingerprint A1. This > >> go

RE: [Question] Signature calculation ignoring parts of binary files

On September 13, 2018 11:03 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" writes: > > > The scenario is slightly different. > > 1. Person A gives me a new binary file-1 with fingerprint A1. This > > goes into git unchanged. > > 2. Person B gives me bina

<    1   2   3