Jeff King writes:
>> Major issue: "echo -n" is still not portable.
>>
>> Could we simply use
>>
>> touch marks-cur &&
>> touch marks-new
>
> Yes, "echo -n" is definitely not portable. Our preferred way of
> creating an empty file is just ">file".
Yes.
And it is misleading to use "touch" i
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> On 11.11.12 14:59, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> test_expect_success 'test biridectionality' '
>> + echo -n > marks-cur &&
>> + echo -n > marks-new &&
> Unless I messed up the patch:
>
> Minor issue: still a typo "biridectionality
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> On 11.11.12 14:59, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > test_expect_success 'test biridectionality' '
> > + echo -n > marks-cur &&
> > + echo -n > marks-new &&
> Unless I messed up the patch:
>
> Minor issue: still a typo "biridec
On 11.11.12 14:59, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> test_expect_success 'test biridectionality' '
> + echo -n > marks-cur &&
> + echo -n > marks-new &&
Unless I messed up the patch:
Minor issue: still a typo "biridectionality"
Major issue: "echo -n" is still not portable.
Could we simply use
t
We want to be able to import, and then export, using the same marks, so
that we don't push things that the other side already received.
Unfortunately, fast-export doesn't store blobs in the marks, but
fast-import does. This creates a mismatch when fast export is reusing a
mark that was previously
5 matches
Mail list logo
