On 11/17/10 10:05, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> $ git push origin topic/libposix
>> Everything up-to-date
>> $
>
> OK, maybe not so much. I don't see any indications of a
> successful push, so I am guessing I did not push anything.
OK. Mixed in with all the error messages was likely some success
indic
On 11/17/2010 11:05 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>
>>> To ssh://bk...@git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/gnulib
>>>e633b39..2d39e49 topic/libposix -> topic/libposix
>>> ! [rejected]master -> master (non-fast-forward)
>>> error: failed to push some refs to
>>> 'ssh://bk...@git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/gnulib
On 11/17/10 09:07, Eric Blake wrote:
> Anyways, you can always use a directed push to say exactly what you
> mean, rather than relying on the no-arg 'git push' defaults. Assuming
> your local branch names match upstream:
>
> git push origin topic/libposix
OK, that looks easy:
> $ git push origi
On 11/17/2010 09:54 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> Are you trying to push to both master and libposix, or just libposix?
>
> To both? If it is possible to inadvertently push to both, then
> the git interface needs some serious work.
>
>> There are some git configurations for controlling whether 'git p
On 11/17/10 07:39, Eric Blake wrote:
>> remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/topic/libposix
>> To ssh://bk...@git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/gnulib
>> ! [rejected]master -> master (non-fast-forward)
>> ! [remote rejected] topic/libposix -> topic/libposix (hook declined)
>
> Are you
Hi Bruce,
I often feel like I'm driving a tank just to pick milk up from the store with
git too... it's hugely overpowered for a great deal of the basic stuff that
ought to be a lot easier. But, since the power is there, hiding it can be
dangerous too... so I'm leary of trusting emacs vcs mode
On 11/17/2010 08:17 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 11/17/10 02:35, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> Hey Bruce,
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2010, at 04:49, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>> Hi Gary, I'd as soon push this part now and debug
>>> the other issues later
>>
>> For the topic/libposix right? All looks fine to me!
>
>
On 11/17/10 02:35, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hey Bruce,
>
> On 17 Nov 2010, at 04:49, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> Hi Gary, I'd as soon push this part now and debug
>> the other issues later
>
> For the topic/libposix right? All looks fine to me!
$ git push
Counting objects: 195, done.
Delta compres
Hey Bruce,
On 17 Nov 2010, at 04:49, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Gary, I'd as soon push this part now and debug
> the other issues later
For the topic/libposix right? All looks fine to me!
> From 8dcc0ce40119e06404ee29c84a52dc8c7f6457fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Bruce Korb
> Date: Tue, 1
Hi Gary, I'd as soon push this part now and debug
the other issues later
>From 8dcc0ce40119e06404ee29c84a52dc8c7f6457fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruce Korb
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:40:18 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] update change log
---
ChangeLog |8
1 files changed, 8 in
John E. Malmberg wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to John E. Malmberg on 3/8/2008 1:32 PM:
| I believe that this attached patch gets intprops.h TYPE_MAXIMUM to
| handle unsigned types.
TYPE_MAXIMUM already handles unsigned types. It seems like y
Eric Blake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to John E. Malmberg on 3/8/2008 1:32 PM:
| I believe that this attached patch gets intprops.h TYPE_MAXIMUM to
| handle unsigned types.
TYPE_MAXIMUM already handles unsigned types. It seems like you have a
buggy compiler,
"John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A mask is needed because of an extension that most C compilers have
> that allow ((unsigned int) -1) to be tested as being less than 0
> through operand promotion.
The C standard requires (unsigned int) -1 to have the same type
and value as UINT_M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to John E. Malmberg on 3/8/2008 1:32 PM:
| I believe that this attached patch gets intprops.h TYPE_MAXIMUM to
| handle unsigned types.
TYPE_MAXIMUM already handles unsigned types. It seems like you have a
buggy compiler, instead.
|
| A ma
I believe that this attached patch gets intprops.h TYPE_MAXIMUM to
handle unsigned types.
A mask is needed because of an extension that most C compilers have that
allow ((unsigned int) -1) to be tested as being less than 0 through
operand promotion.
This still leaves me a problem with getda
15 matches
Mail list logo