Jeff King writes:
> Yeah, I had the same thought while working on this, but just didn't want
> to have to tweak every config callback. As you say, I don't think this
> makes anything fundamentally worse, though. I'm inclined to go with this
> strategy, especially with the extra die("BUG") safety
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 05:59:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > I've often wanted to intercept the call from upload-pack to
> > pack-objects. The final patch in this series goes into more detail, but
> > basically it's good for:
> >
> > 1.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> I've often wanted to intercept the call from upload-pack to
> pack-objects. The final patch in this series goes into more detail, but
> basically it's good for:
>
> 1. Capturing the output from pack-objects for debugging/inspection.
>
> 2. Ca
I've often wanted to intercept the call from upload-pack to
pack-objects. The final patch in this series goes into more detail, but
basically it's good for:
1. Capturing the output from pack-objects for debugging/inspection.
2. Capturing the input to pack-objects to replay for debugging or
4 matches
Mail list logo
