Hi Peff,
On 2015-06-08 18:56, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> >> I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute
>> >> "too backwards-incompatible" a change to make this an error. I think
>> >> it could be argued b
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >> I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute
> >> "too backwards-incompatible" a change to make this an error. I think
> >> it could be argued both ways: it *is* an improvement, but it could
> >> als
Hi Michael,
On 2015-06-08 17:09, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 06/08/2015 04:27 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> On 2015-06-08 08:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>> Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable
>>> to an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report s
On 06/08/2015 04:27 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On 2015-06-08 08:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable
>> to an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such
>> cases as errors.
>
> I like the idea, but I am a bit un
Hi Michael,
On 2015-06-08 08:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable to
> an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such cases
> as errors.
I like the idea, but I am a bit uncertain whether it would constitute "too
backw
Previously, if a reflog entry's old or new SHA-1 was not resolvable to
an object, that SHA-1 was silently ignored. Instead, report such cases
as errors.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
---
builtin/fsck.c | 13 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/fs
6 matches
Mail list logo
