On 04/02/2013 04:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>>>
Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user
input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use o
Michael Haggerty writes:
> On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>>
>>> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user
>>> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the
>>> peeler here. Perhaps
>>> ...
>>
>> A "SQUA
On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user
>> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the
>> peeler here. Perhaps
>> ...
>
> A "SQUASH???" patch on top of your original
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user
> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the
> peeler here. Perhaps
> ...
A "SQUASH???" patch on top of your original is queued on 'pu',
together with the earlier "^{object}" p
Michael Haggerty writes:
> ... Though honestly, I don't see the point of using
> --default as opposed to
>
> $ git rev-parse --verify ${REV:-master}^{commit}
I would agree ${VAR:-default} is sufficient in that particular case.
The --default is more about the use of the pluming command not
The old version could be read to mean that the argument has to refer
to a valid object, but that is incorrect:
* the object is not necessarily read (e.g., to check for corruption)
* if the argument is a 40-digit string of hex digits, then it is
accepted whether or not is is the name of an exist
6 matches
Mail list logo
