Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 19:38:07 Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> > On Monday 12 April 2010 18:25:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >> Can you describe a scenario in which
>> >> using "git update-index --refresh" makes
>> >> git-version-gen work better than
On Monday 12 April 2010 19:38:07 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>
> > On Monday 12 April 2010 18:25:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> Can you describe a scenario in which
> >> using "git update-index --refresh" makes
> >> git-version-gen work better than with "git status"?
> >> In the
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 18:25:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Can you describe a scenario in which
>> using "git update-index --refresh" makes
>> git-version-gen work better than with "git status"?
>> In the example I tried (touch an unmodified, vc'd file),
>> they appear to
On Monday 12 April 2010 18:25:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Can you describe a scenario in which
> using "git update-index --refresh" makes
> git-version-gen work better than with "git status"?
> In the example I tried (touch an unmodified, vc'd file),
> they appear to have the same net effect.
I can't
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> * build-aux/git-version-gen: Use git update-index here; git status
> will leave the index outdated.
> ---
> build-aux/git-version-gen |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/build-aux/git-version-gen b/build-aux/git-version-gen
