On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Stefan Beller writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>>>
Stefan Beller writes:
> It was a bug, but now people in the outside world consider it a feature.
> Search for "Git fake submodules" and you'll find a few users who use this
> technique successfully.
>
> I do not think fixing this bug would do good. So maybe we just let it slip?
I am OK with leav
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Stefan Beller writes:
>> I wonder if the patches mentioned have something to do with the
Stefan Beller writes:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Stefan Beller writes:
>>>
> I wonder if the patches mentioned have something to do with the "git
> add deep/in/the/tree" that fails to notice deep/in/
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Stefan Beller writes:
>>
I wonder if the patches mentioned have something to do with the "git
add deep/in/the/tree" that fails to notice deep/in/ is an unrelated
repository
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>>> I wonder if the patches mentioned have something to do with the "git
>>> add deep/in/the/tree" that fails to notice deep/in/ is an unrelated
>>> repository in some way?
The same functionality is added in 8745024
Stefan Beller writes:
> There are 2 fundamental cases though.
> (1) The bug we're talking about (as explained in that blog), refers to 2
> independent repositories, whose work trees are nested
> (2) You seemed to bring in the notion that the nested repo is considered
> a submodule of th
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> When deep/in/ is an unrelated repository, and running either
>>
>> git add deep/in/the
>> git add deep/in/the/tree
>>
>> would add deep/in/the/tree/is-a-leaf.txt to my index, but if I did
>>
>> git ad
Junio C Hamano writes:
> When deep/in/ is an unrelated repository, and running either
>
> git add deep/in/the
> git add deep/in/the/tree
>
> would add deep/in/the/tree/is-a-leaf.txt to my index, but if I did
>
> git add deep/in
>
> I'd lose that and suddenly everything there turns int
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> That was my first reaction as well. However after a while of thought I
>> actually
>> like that bug. Consider the possibilities how gitk/git-gui or other
>> subsystems
>> can be developed. When accepting a patch
Stefan Beller writes:
> That was my first reaction as well. However after a while of thought I
> actually
> like that bug. Consider the possibilities how gitk/git-gui or other subsystems
> can be developed. When accepting a patch for that you can either apply the
> patch in the outer or inner re
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>>> I wonder if the patches mentioned have something to do with the "git
>>> add deep/in/the/tree" that fails to notice deep/in/ is an unrelated
>>> repository in some way?
>>
>> Which is considered a feature now. May
Stefan Beller writes:
>> I wonder if the patches mentioned have something to do with the "git
>> add deep/in/the/tree" that fails to notice deep/in/ is an unrelated
>> repository in some way?
>
> Which is considered a feature now. Maybe we should add tests for that?
>
> http://debuggable.com/post
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> `check_path_for_gitlink` was introduced in 9d67b61f739a (2013-01-06,
>> add.c: extract check_path_for_gitlink() from treat_gitlinks() for reuse)
>> but the implementation was removed in 5a76aff1a6 (2013-07-14, add:
Stefan Beller writes:
> `check_path_for_gitlink` was introduced in 9d67b61f739a (2013-01-06,
> add.c: extract check_path_for_gitlink() from treat_gitlinks() for reuse)
> but the implementation was removed in 5a76aff1a6 (2013-07-14, add:
> convert to use parse_pathspec).
>
> Remove the declaration
`check_path_for_gitlink` was introduced in 9d67b61f739a (2013-01-06,
add.c: extract check_path_for_gitlink() from treat_gitlinks() for reuse)
but the implementation was removed in 5a76aff1a6 (2013-07-14, add:
convert to use parse_pathspec).
Remove the declaration from the header as well.
Signed-o
16 matches
Mail list logo
