On 12/19/2016 07:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> Especially given that the output is not especially machine-readable, it
>> might be more consistent with other commands to call the new feature
>> `--verbose` rather than `--report-errors`.
>
> Don't we instead want to
Michael Haggerty writes:
> Especially given that the output is not especially machine-readable, it
> might be more consistent with other commands to call the new feature
> `--verbose` rather than `--report-errors`.
Don't we instead want to structure the output to be machine-readable
instead, giv
Michael Haggerty writes ("Re: [PATCH 0/5] git check-ref-format --stdin
--report-errors"):
> Thanks for your patches. I left some comments about the individual patches.
Thanks for your review.
> I don't know whether this feature will be popular, but it's not a lot
On 11/04/2016 08:13 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I wanted to be able to syntax check lots of proposed refs quickly
> (please don't ask why - it's complicated!)
>
> So I added a --stdin option to git-check-ref-format. Also it has
> --report-errors now too so you can get some kind of useful error
> mes
I wanted to be able to syntax check lots of proposed refs quickly
(please don't ask why - it's complicated!)
So I added a --stdin option to git-check-ref-format. Also it has
--report-errors now too so you can get some kind of useful error
message if it complains.
It's still not really a good bat
5 matches
Mail list logo
