On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>>> Thanks, the new text looks good to me. Please follow SubmittingPatches
>>> (notably, you need to sign-off your work,
t file.
>From 6e1fc126ece37c6201d0c16b76c6c87781f7b02b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Angelico
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:45:08 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Explain that third-party tools may create 'git config'
variables
Signed-off-by: Chris Angelico
---
Documentation/config.txt |5 +++--
1 file changed, 3
Heh. I thought the "porcelain" sections of git were the
lower-level or machine-readable versions of other tools, and didn't
really think of mine as fitting into that.
How does the attached patch look?
ChrisA
From 1be7b0920510b9f45ca6d3879289753fdc5b5435 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ch
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> file. It doesn't really care about the full history, and wants to be
>> reasonably fast (as the user is waiting for it). It's just a
>> convenience, so correctness isn't a
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Kevin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Two parts to the question, then. Firstly, is it acceptable to use 'git
>> config' for a hook like this? And secondly, either: Is there a naming
>>
I have a bit of a weird question. Poking around with Google searches
hasn't come up with any results, so I'm asking here :)
Short version: What's the most appropriate way to configure a git hook?
Long version: I have a git hook (handles prepare-commit-msg and
commit-msg) and part of what it does
6 matches
Mail list logo
