Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, CHINA - Tianjin University, Tianjin, CHINA - Nanjing Forestry University, CHINA - Asia University, TAIWAN

2013-10-04 Thread Call For Papers
Call For Papers: 1st International Conference on Forest Resources and Environment (FORE '13) 1st International Conference on Wood Science and Technology (WOST '13) 1st International Conference on Interior Design and Contruction (INDC '13) 1st International Conference on Tourism and Economic D

Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, CHINA - Tianjin University, Tianjin, CHINA - Nanjing Forestry University, CHINA - Asia University, TAIWAN

2013-10-04 Thread Call For Papers
Call For Papers: 1st International Conference on Forest Resources and Environment (FORE '13) 1st International Conference on Wood Science and Technology (WOST '13) 1st International Conference on Interior Design and Contruction (INDC '13) 1st International Conference on Tourism and Economic D

Re: [PATCH] mergetool--lib: Fix typo in the merge/difftool help

2013-10-04 Thread David Aguilar
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Stefan Saasen wrote: > The help text for the `tool` flag should mention: > > --tool= > > instead of: > > --tool- > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Saasen > --- Good eyes! Reviewed-by: David Aguilar Thanks > git-mergetool--lib.sh | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 in

Re: [PATCH] clone: do not segfault when specifying a nonexistent branch

2013-10-04 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > I think we should emit a warning additionally? > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller I think it's nice to credit Robert for reporting the fault in the commit message (something like "reported-by:" or "noticed-by:"...) > --- > builtin/clone.c |

Re: git rebase is confused about commits w/o textual changes (e.g. chmod's)

2013-10-04 Thread Paul Sokolovsky
Hello, On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:28:54 + "brian m. carlson" wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:32:44AM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > $ git --version > > git version 1.8.4 > > > > Specifically from Ubuntu PPA: > > http://ppa.launchpad.net/git-core/ppa/ubuntu > > > > > > Script to reproduc

Re: git rebase is confused about commits w/o textual changes (e.g. chmod's)

2013-10-04 Thread brian m. carlson
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:32:44AM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > $ git --version > git version 1.8.4 > > Specifically from Ubuntu PPA: > http://ppa.launchpad.net/git-core/ppa/ubuntu > > > Script to reproduce the issue is: > https://gist.github.com/pfalcon/6736632 , based on a real-world case o

Bug? Unexpected outputs of git pull on stdout v.s. stderr

2013-10-04 Thread Pascal MALAISE
Hello, git --version -> git version 1.7.9.5 on linux A 'git pull' operation exits with 1 (which is normal) but generates the following output and error flows: stdout: Auto-merging c/makefile CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in c/makefile Auto-merging c/x_color.c Auto-merging c/x_export.c CONFL

[PATCH] mergetool--lib: Fix typo in the merge/difftool help

2013-10-04 Thread Stefan Saasen
The help text for the `tool` flag should mention: --tool= instead of: --tool- Signed-off-by: Stefan Saasen --- git-mergetool--lib.sh | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/git-mergetool--lib.sh b/git-mergetool--lib.sh index feee6a4..e1c7eb1 100644 --- a/gi

[PATCH] clone: do not segfault when specifying a nonexistent branch

2013-10-04 Thread Stefan Beller
I think we should emit a warning additionally? Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller --- builtin/clone.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/builtin/clone.c b/builtin/clone.c index 0aff974..b764ad0 100644 --- a/builtin/clone.c +++ b/builtin/clone.c @@ -688,7 +688,7 @@ stat

[PATCH v3] push: Enhance unspecified push default warning

2013-10-04 Thread Greg Jacobson
When the unset push.default warning message is displayed this may be the first time many users encounter push.default. Modified the warning message to explain in a compact manner what push.default is and why it is being changed in Git 2.0. Also provided additional information to help users decide

[PATCH] cherry-pick: do not segfault without arguments.

2013-10-04 Thread Stefan Beller
Commit 182d7dc46b (2013-09-05, cherry-pick: allow "-" as abbreviation of '@{-1}') accesses the first argument without checking whether it exists. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller --- builtin/revert.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/builtin/revert.c b/builtin/rever

Bug: Segmentation fault (core dumped)

2013-10-04 Thread Robert Mitwicki
Hi, When I am trying to clone an empty repository and I will use together --depth 1 and -b branch_name (branch does not exist) then I get Segmentation fault (repo seems to be cloned correctly). Please see attachment for more details. Best regards Robert Mitwicki > git clone --depth 1 -b test htt

Re: [PATCH] Extend runtime prefix computation

2013-10-04 Thread Michael Weiser
Hi, On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 08:06:47AM +0200, Michael Weiser wrote: > > >> >> Support determining the binaries' installation path at runtime even if > > >> >> called without any path components (i.e. via search path). > > What's the reason you want it on other platforms? > It's part of an in-ho

Re: [PATCH v2] add: add --bulk to index all objects into a pack file

2013-10-04 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > It's not an all-win situation though. --bulk is slower than --no-bulk > because: > > - Triple hashing: we need to calculate both object SHA-1s _and_ pack >SHA-1. At the end we have to fix up the pack, which means rehashing >the

Re: Git counterpart to SVN bugtraq properties?

2013-10-04 Thread Thomas Koch
On Friday, October 04, 2013 01:22:08 PM Marc Strapetz wrote: > On 04.10.2013 11:15, Thomas Koch wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 03:03:14 PM Marc Strapetz wrote: > >> I'm looking for a specification or guidelines on how a Git client should > >> integrate with bug tracking systems. For SVN, on

Re: Git counterpart to SVN bugtraq properties?

2013-10-04 Thread Marc Strapetz
On 04.10.2013 11:15, Thomas Koch wrote: > On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 03:03:14 PM Marc Strapetz wrote: >> I'm looking for a specification or guidelines on how a Git client should >> integrate with bug tracking systems. For SVN, one can use >> bugtraq-properties [1] to specify e.g. the issue tracker

Re: Git counterpart to SVN bugtraq properties?

2013-10-04 Thread Thomas Koch
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 03:03:14 PM Marc Strapetz wrote: > I'm looking for a specification or guidelines on how a Git client should > integrate with bug tracking systems. For SVN, one can use > bugtraq-properties [1] to specify e.g. the issue tracker URL ... There's seldom a question that has

[PATCH] for-each-ref: avoid loading objects to print %(objectname)

2013-10-04 Thread Jeff King
If you ask for-each-ref to print each ref and its object, like: git for-each-ref --format='%(objectname) %(refname)' this should involve little more work than looking at the ref files themselves (along with packed-refs). However, for-each-ref will actually load each object from disk just to pri

[PATCH] silence gcc array-bounds warning

2013-10-04 Thread Jeff King
In shorten_unambiguous_ref, we build and cache a reverse-map of the rev-parse rules like this: static char **scanf_fmts; static int nr_rules; if (!nr_rules) { for (; ref_rev_parse_rules[nr_rules]; nr_rules++) ... generate scanf_fmts ... } where ref_rev_parse_ru

Re: [PATCH v2] add: add --bulk to index all objects into a pack file

2013-10-04 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > >> except that it does not deltifies nor sort objects. > > I think this should be mentionned in the doc. Otherwise, it seems like > "git add --bulk" is like "git add && git repack". Yep. Will do. > BTW, will th

Re: [PATCH v2] add: add --bulk to index all objects into a pack file

2013-10-04 Thread Matthieu Moy
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > except that it does not deltifies nor sort objects. I think this should be mentionned in the doc. Otherwise, it seems like "git add --bulk" is like "git add && git repack". BTW, will the next "git gc" be efficient after a "add --bulk"? I mean: will it consider the