On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Manish Goregaokar
wrote:
> What work is remaining for prune-in-worktree? Link to the relevant
> discussions?
>
> I might be able to take it over the finish line. (No guarantees)
The finish line should be pretty close. I've addressed Michael's other
comments excep
What work is remaining for prune-in-worktree? Link to the relevant discussions?
I might be able to take it over the finish line. (No guarantees)
-Manish Goregaokar
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> By the way, doesn't
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> By the way, doesn't nd/prune-in-worktree topic that has been cooking
> in 'pu' supersede this change? It not just protects the commit at
> the tip of HEAD in each worktree, it also makes sure the ones in
> HEAD's reflog are not prematurely
Manish Goregaokar writes:
> One thing which I think hasn't been covered yet is the rebase
> ORIG_HEAD. I'll see if that's still a problem on `pu` and make a patch
> for it if so.
IIRC, ORIG_HEAD, FETCH_HEAD, MERGE_HEAD and others are be transitory
and never served as the starting points of reach
Yes, you are right (on both counts).
One thing which I think hasn't been covered yet is the rebase
ORIG_HEAD. I'll see if that's still a problem on `pu` and make a patch
for it if so.
(I recall `git prune` during a rebase messing up repo state, though
it's really my fault for trying that in the f
manishea...@gmail.com writes:
> +int for_each_worktree_ref(each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data)
> +{
> + int i, flag, retval = 0;
> + struct object_id oid;
> + struct worktree **worktrees = get_worktrees(GWT_SORT_LINKED);
> + struct commit* commit;
> + for (i = 0; worktrees[i]; i++)
On 05/18, Samuel Lijin wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:45:31PM -0700, Manish Goregaokar wrote:
> >> Hm, my invocation of git-send-email keeps getting the threading wrong.
> >> Is there a recommended set of arguments to the command?
> >
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:45:31PM -0700, Manish Goregaokar wrote:
>> Hm, my invocation of git-send-email keeps getting the threading wrong.
>> Is there a recommended set of arguments to the command?
>
> The threading looks fine here (for bo
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:45:31PM -0700, Manish Goregaokar wrote:
> Hm, my invocation of git-send-email keeps getting the threading wrong.
> Is there a recommended set of arguments to the command?
The threading looks fine here (for both cases where you mentioned
it being wrong). Why do you think
Hm, my invocation of git-send-email keeps getting the threading wrong.
Is there a recommended set of arguments to the command?
Thanks,
-Manish Goregaokar
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:42 PM, wrote:
> From: Manish Goregaokar
>
> To ensure that `git prune` does not remove refs checked out
> in othe
From: Manish Goregaokar
To ensure that `git prune` does not remove refs checked out
in other worktrees, we need to include these HEADs in the
set of roots. This adds the iteration function necessary
to do this.
Signed-off-by: Manish Goregaokar
---
refs.c | 20
refs.h | 1
11 matches
Mail list logo
