Translate 72 new messages came from git.pot update in 18a907225 (l10n:
git.pot: v2.16.0 round 1 (64 new, 25 removed)) and 005c62fe4 (l10n:
git.pot: v2.16.0 round 2 (8 new, 4 removed)).
Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow
---
Thanks for the review, Matthias!
po/de.po | 227 +++--
--
Weekend Greetings ,
I was wondering if you got my previous Email to you regarding my
proposal ?
best regards
From: Torsten Bögershausen
When calling convert_to_git(), the checksafe parameter defined what
should happen if the EOL conversion (CRLF --> LF --> CRLF) does not
roundtrip cleanly. In addition, it also defined if line endings should
be renormalized (CRLF --> LF) or kept as they are.
checksafe w
In a0a967568e ("update-index --split-index: do not split if $GIT_DIR is
read only", 2014-06-13), we tried to make sure we can still write an
index, even if the shared index can not be written.
We did so by just calling 'do_write_locked_index()' from
'write_shared_index()'. 'do_write_locked_index(
On 01/08, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 01/08, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Gummerer
> > wrote:
> > > @@ -1896,16 +1895,17 @@ int read_index_from(struct index_state *istate,
> > > const char *path)
> > > split_index->base = xcalloc(1,
> > > sizeof(*
On January 13, 2018 2:31 PM, I wrote:
> On January 13, 2018 1:08 PM, I wrote:
> > Heres where things are. This is probably the best git release so far
> (ever).
> > After applying a4cdf02, I had 6 total breakages. 3 existing, 3 new.
> > Many reduced. The test took about 24 hours to run on platform
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Christian Couder
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>>
>>> If we go for it, we need:
>>>
>>> * Admins
>From the application site I filled in the application forms and
registered as an
On January 13, 2018 1:08 PM, I wrote:
> Heres where things are. This is probably the best git release so far
(ever).
> After applying a4cdf02, I had 6 total breakages. 3 existing, 3 new.
> Many reduced. The test took about 24 hours to run on platform, which is
> about 2 hours shorter than 2.13.5.
Hi,
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Kim Gybels wrote:
> Take a hint from commit ea68b0ce9f8ce8da3e360aed3cbd6720159ffbee and use
Maybe use
ea68b0ce9f8 (hash-object: don't use mmap() for small files,
2010-02-21)
instead of the full commit name?
> read() instead of mmap() for small packed-
(one spelling spotted)..
From: "Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy"
This is partly inspired by gerrit web interface which shows diffstat
like this, e.g. with commit 0433d533f1 (notice the "A" column on the
third line):
Documentation/merge-config.txt | 4 +
builtin/merge.c| 2
Hi team,
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> A release candidate Git v2.16.0-rc2 is now available for testing
> at the usual places. It is comprised of 483 non-merge commits
> since v2.15.0, contributed by 80 people, 23 of which are new faces.
>
> The tarballs are found at:
>
> ht
Heres where things are. This is probably the best git release so far
(ever). After applying a4cdf02, I had 6 total breakages. 3 existing, 3 new.
Many reduced. The test took about 24 hours to run on platform, which is
about 2 hours shorter than 2.13.5.
t1308-config-set.sh (2 already discussed and
> Sent: On January 13, 2018 12:13 PM, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 12.01.2018 um 20:52 schrieb Randall S. Becker:
> > On a related too many warnings subject, hashmap.h has a variable
> > unused (void *item). Is that addressed soon? If not, I can deal with
> > it.
> Here are the code lines containing th
Andrzej Ośmiałowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> I could be wrong, but I think you need to append '!' to
>> KEYID to force gpg to use that specific signing subkey.
[...]
> thanks for reply. You just solved my issue. I will prepare a PR to the
> docs to add rel
Am 12.01.2018 um 20:52 schrieb Randall S. Becker:
> On a related too many warnings subject, hashmap.h has a variable
> unused (void *item). Is that addressed soon? If not, I can deal with
> it.
Here are the code lines containing the variable in question:
void *item;
while ((item =
--
Hello,
I have a project i want to bring to you.. please respond for details
Alex
Take a hint from commit ea68b0ce9f8ce8da3e360aed3cbd6720159ffbee and use
read() instead of mmap() for small packed-refs files.
This also fixes the problem[1] where xmmap() returns NULL for zero
length[2], for which munmap() later fails.
Alternatively, we could simply check for NULL before munmap(
I am Mr.Sheng Li Hung, from china I got your information while search for
a reliable person, I have a very profitable business proposition for you
and i can assure you that you will not regret been part of this mutual
beneficial transaction after completion. Kindly get back to me for more
details o
This is partly inspired by gerrit web interface which shows diffstat
like this, e.g. with commit 0433d533f1 (notice the "A" column on the
third line):
Documentation/merge-config.txt | 4 +
builtin/merge.c| 2 +
A t/t5573-pull-verify-signatures.sh | 81
Hi Todd,
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hi Andrzej,
>
> Andrzej Ośmiałowski wrote:
>> I have an issue with git and signing commits with GPG subkey.
>>
>> My setup:
>> - master key used for certification only
>> - subkey for my main workstation
>> - subkey for my mobile w
For 'add -i' and 'add -p', the only action we can take on a dirty
submodule entry is update the index with a new value from its HEAD. The
content changes inside (from its own index, untracked files...) do not
matter, at least until 'git add -i' learns about launching a new
interactive add session i
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 05:32:56AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> According to:
>
> https://blog.travis-ci.com/2013-05-22-improving-build-visibility-log-folds
>
> they auto-fold individual commands _except_ the ones in the script
> section. Is there a way to manually mark folds in the output?
>
>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 02:32:54PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> That's the just beginning of a looong list of executed test scripts in
> seemingly pseudo-random order. IMHO that's very rarely the interesting
> part; I, for one, am only interested in that list in exceptional cases,
> e.g. while tw
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 09:23:05PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > Why can't we generate a new cruft-pack on every gc run that
> > > detects too many unreachable objects? That would not be as
> > > efficient as a single cruft-pack but it should be way more
> > > efficient than the individual object
24 matches
Mail list logo