Jeff Hostetler writes:
> Either version is fine. I'd say use my perl version as I have tested it and
> it is simple enough and already in the tree. I don't think it's worth the
> bother to switch it to the dd version.
Thanks, I agree what you said is very sensible.
On 4/26/2017 12:34 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano writes:
g...@jeffhostetler.com writes:
From: Jeff Hostetler
Version 8 of this patch converts the unit test to use
perl to corrupt the index checksum (rather than altering
a filename) and also verifies the fsck error message as
s
On 4/26/2017 12:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
g...@jeffhostetler.com writes:
From: Jeff Hostetler
Version 8 of this patch converts the unit test to use
perl to corrupt the index checksum (rather than altering
a filename) and also verifies the fsck error message as
suggested in response to v7
Junio C Hamano writes:
> g...@jeffhostetler.com writes:
>
>> From: Jeff Hostetler
>>
>> Version 8 of this patch converts the unit test to use
>> perl to corrupt the index checksum (rather than altering
>> a filename) and also verifies the fsck error message as
>> suggested in response to v7 on t
g...@jeffhostetler.com writes:
> From: Jeff Hostetler
>
> Version 8 of this patch converts the unit test to use
> perl to corrupt the index checksum (rather than altering
> a filename) and also verifies the fsck error message as
> suggested in response to v7 on the mailing list.
>
> If there are
From: Jeff Hostetler
Version 8 of this patch converts the unit test to use
perl to corrupt the index checksum (rather than altering
a filename) and also verifies the fsck error message as
suggested in response to v7 on the mailing list.
If there are no other suggestions, I think this version
sho
6 matches
Mail list logo
