Hi Junio,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > I do not think negative (or non-zero) return is an "abuse" at all.
> > It is misleading in the context of the function whose name has "cmp"
> > in it, but that is not the fault of this function, rather, the
> > b
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I do not think negative (or non-zero) return is an "abuse" at all.
> It is misleading in the context of the function whose name has "cmp"
> in it, but that is not the fault of this function, rather, the
> breakage is more in the API that calls a function that wants to kno
Johannes Schindelin writes:
>> Perhaps hashmap API needs fixing in the longer term not to call this
>> type hashmap_cmp_fn; instead it should lose cmp and say something
>> like hashmap_eq_fn or something.
>
> Maybe.
>
> But to make sure: you do not expect Kevin to do that in the context of
> this
Jakub Narębski writes:
> The problem is that one expects hashmap_cmp_fn() to return ==0 on equality,
> while one would expect for hashmap_eq_fn() to return true (==1) on equality.
> So we would have to rewrite all calling sites.
Yes, and I do not think it is a "problem". There only are about a
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Kevin Willford writes:
> >>
> >> > static int patch_id_cmp(struct patch_id *a,
> >> > struct patch_id *b,
> >> > -
W dniu 01.08.2016 o 22:11, Junio C Hamano pisze:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> These error returns initially looks slightly iffy in that in general
>>> the caller of any_cmp_fn() wants to know how a/b compares, but by
>>> returning error(), it alw
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Kevin Willford writes:
>>
>> > static int patch_id_cmp(struct patch_id *a,
>> >struct patch_id *b,
>> > - void *keydata)
>> > + struct diff_options
Hi Junio,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kevin Willford writes:
>
> > static int patch_id_cmp(struct patch_id *a,
> > struct patch_id *b,
> > - void *keydata)
> > + struct diff_options *opt)
> > {
> > + if (is_null_sha1(a
Kevin Willford writes:
> static int patch_id_cmp(struct patch_id *a,
> struct patch_id *b,
> - void *keydata)
> + struct diff_options *opt)
> {
> + if (is_null_sha1(a->patch_id) &&
> + commit_patch_id(a->commit, opt, a->p
From: Kevin Willford
The `rebase` family of Git commands avoid applying patches that were
already integrated upstream. They do that by using the revision walking
option that computes the patch IDs of the two sides of the rebase
(local-only patches vs upstream-only ones) and skipping those local
p
10 matches
Mail list logo
