On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 02:42:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * jk/http-backend-deadlock (2015-05-15) 2 commits
> - http-backend: spool ref negotiation requests to buffer
> - http-backend: fix die recursion with custom handler
>
> Communication between the HTTP server and http_backend proc
Commit 811cd77b ("tree-walk: learn get_tree_entry_follow_symlinks",
14-05-2015) introduced a new function to locate an object by path
while following symlinks in the repository. However, sparse now
issues some "Using plain integer as NULL pointer" warnings as
follows:
SP tree-walk.c
tree-
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:48:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > Yuck; please discard the previous one. write_in_full() side is also
> > writing into that process, so we should do the same.
>
> OK, without these two, and with the "true" filter that does not read
>
Call file_exists() instead of open-coding it. That's shorter, simpler
and the intent becomes clearer.
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe
---
builtin/blame.c | 15 +++
builtin/rm.c | 3 +--
merge-recursive.c | 3 +--
sha1_name.c | 7 +++
submodule.c | 3 +--
5 fil
Sorry for the noise, it must be a machine specific
thing at my end, because v2.3 and even v2.0.0
fail the test now.
To observe the failing test I run
$ make && (cd t; ./t5570-git-daemon.sh)
which should be sufficient to not have stale data?
I'll try to follow the test script and look into t
Hi,
I have just realized that this would not work on directories
triggering directory renames somewhat pointless for those who want to
keep track of a group of files in directories.
It is unfortunate when you have a directory with many files and more
often than not, you would like to look at the
Hi Yuval,
On 2015-05-18 08:50, Yuval Greenfield wrote:
> Here is the command sequence that causes git to stop responding:
>
> mkdir mynewthing
> cd mynewthing
> git init
> mkdir abc
> touch abc/myfile
> git add abc/myfile
> git commit -a -m "whatever"
> git mv abc tmp
> git mv tmp Abc
>
> I wan
Hi Paul,
On 2015-05-16 14:33, Paul Tan wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> wrote:
>> Asketh and ye shall be given: without running the tests in parallel, our
>> Jenkins would take *even longer* than the three hours per test suite run
>> (which is really painful, st
8 matches
Mail list logo
