Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>>> When fsck. is set to an unknown value it'll cause "fsck" to
>>> die, but the same is not rue of the "fetch" and "receive"
>>> variants. Document this and test for it.
> ...
> We could change it. This is just something I ran into and figured it
> should be teste
On Fri, Jul 27 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>> When fsck. is set to an unknown value it'll cause "fsck" to
>> die, but the same is not rue of the "fetch" and "receive"
>> variants. Document this and test for it.
>
> Interesting. Before documenting and adding
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> When fsck. is set to an unknown value it'll cause "fsck" to
> die, but the same is not rue of the "fetch" and "receive"
> variants. Document this and test for it.
Interesting. Before documenting and adding a test to cast the
current behaviour in stone, do we n
a
On Fri, Jul 27 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> When fsck. is set to an unknown value it'll cause "fsck" to
> die, but the same is not rue of the "fetch" and "receive"
s/rue/t&/. Looks like we're headed for a v4. I'll fix this typo.
When fsck. is set to an unknown value it'll cause "fsck" to
die, but the same is not rue of the "fetch" and "receive"
variants. Document this and test for it.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
---
Documentation/config.txt| 4
t/t5504-fetch-receive-strict.sh | 14 ++
5 matches
Mail list logo
