Stefan Beller writes:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>>> yes that's what I was trying to hint at. The hook would just see
>>> it is unsolicited instead of not having the state available.
>>
>> OK. That makes sort of sense. So if we:
>>
>> 1) did not apply either
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> yes that's what I was trying to hint at. The hook would just see
>> it is unsolicited instead of not having the state available.
>
> OK. That makes sort of sense. So if we:
>
> 1) did not apply either patch (i.e. we accept unsolicite
Stefan Beller writes:
> I had problems with wording the commit message because I have no
> expertise with the feature. I am sorry for wasting your time there.
Heh, remember, the time spent discussing Git on this list is not a
wasted time.
>> What is not given to the hook is the push-cert-nonce-
On 09.01.2015 17:52, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> If the server is configured to not advertise push certificates,
>> a push certificate that gets pushed nevertheless will not be fully
>> recorded because push_cert_nonce is NULL.
>
> Sorry, but I do not quite see what you ar
Stefan Beller writes:
> If the server is configured to not advertise push certificates,
> a push certificate that gets pushed nevertheless will not be fully
> recorded because push_cert_nonce is NULL.
Sorry, but I do not quite see what you are trying to get at.
When we did not advertise that th
If the server is configured to not advertise push certificates,
a push certificate that gets pushed nevertheless will not be fully
recorded because push_cert_nonce is NULL.
The recording of GIT_PUSH_CERT_NONCE_STATUS should be dependent on
the status being there instead of push_cert_nonce being no
6 matches
Mail list logo
