On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> v2 applies to sb/atomic-push instead of next and will result in a one
>> line merge conflict with next.
>
> I acctually tried to apply on 'next' and also on 'sb/atomic-push'
> and both failed.
That's strange inde
Stefan Beller writes:
> v2 applies to sb/atomic-push instead of next and will result in a one
> line merge conflict with next.
I acctually tried to apply on 'next' and also on 'sb/atomic-push'
and both failed. I had to wiggle the patches to make them apply on
the latter, and that is what is que
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:23:39PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>
>>> (reported as: git update-ref --stdin : too many open files, 2014-12-20)
>>>
>>> First a test case is introduced to demonstrate the failure,
>>> th
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:23:39PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> (reported as: git update-ref --stdin : too many open files, 2014-12-20)
>>
>> First a test case is introduced to demonstrate the failure,
>> the patches 2-6 are little refactoring and the last patch
>> fixes
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:23:39PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> (reported as: git update-ref --stdin : too many open files, 2014-12-20)
>
> First a test case is introduced to demonstrate the failure,
> the patches 2-6 are little refactoring and the last patch
> fixes the bug and also marks the
(reported as: git update-ref --stdin : too many open files, 2014-12-20)
First a test case is introduced to demonstrate the failure,
the patches 2-6 are little refactoring and the last patch
fixes the bug and also marks the bugs as resolved in the
test suite.
Unfortunately this applies on top of
6 matches
Mail list logo
