Le 13/07/2015 5:52, Jeff King a écrit :
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:21:33AM +0200, X H wrote:
How are the permission handled, is it git that is asking to create a file
read only or rw on the remote or is it the environment with umask ans so on
that decides it, or Windows when the drive is mounte
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:21:33AM +0200, X H wrote:
> How are the permission handled, is it git that is asking to create a file
> read only or rw on the remote or is it the environment with umask ans so on
> that decides it, or Windows when the drive is mounted with noacl?
Generally, git follows
Le 10/07/2015 0:48, Jeff King a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:51:50PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Ah! That code is less than a year old. When I began to adopt a workflow
requiring force-pushes lately, I wondered why I haven't seen these
failures earlier, because I did do force pushes in th
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:51:50PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >Ah! That code is less than a year old. When I began to adopt a workflow
> >requiring force-pushes lately, I wondered why I haven't seen these
> >failures earlier, because I did do force pushes in the past, but not
> >that frequently
Am 08.07.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Johannes Sixt:
Am 08.07.2015 um 20:33 schrieb Jeff King:
...or maybe in the utime() step there is actually a bug, and we report
failure for no good reason. Ugh.
Ah! That code is less than a year old. When I began to adopt a workflow
requiring force-pushes lately,
Am 08.07.2015 um 20:33 schrieb Jeff King:
...or maybe in the utime() step there is actually a bug, and we report
failure for no good reason. Ugh.
Ah! That code is less than a year old. When I began to adopt a workflow
requiring force-pushes lately, I wondered why I haven't seen these
failures
Jeff King writes:
> Subject: check_and_freshen_file: fix reversed success-check
>
> When we want to write out a loose object file, we have
> always first made sure we don't already have the object
> somewhere. Since 33d4221 (write_sha1_file: freshen existing
> objects, 2014-10-15), we also update
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:05:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> The code path should be unpack-objects.c:write_object, which calls
> sha1_file.cwrite_sha1_file, which then checks has_sha1_file(). These
> days it uses the freshen_* functions instead of the latter, which does a
> similar check. But it
8 matches
Mail list logo
