Isabella Stephens writes:
> This is the existing behaviour. -L10,-20 for example will blame the
> first 10 lines of a file, it will not fail. My patch doesn't change
> this. The case I am discussing is -L,-20 which at the moment blames
> the first line of the file. Trying to go backwards from the
> Maybe I misread the previous discussion and/or your cover letter,
> but I have been assuming that you are trying to avoid failing the
> command in a useless way (e.g. when the file has only ~800 lines but
> the user does not know exactly how many, instead of letting -L1,820
> to fail with "the f
Isabella Stephens writes:
> On 27/4/18 10:50 am, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> isteph...@atlassian.com writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/line-range.c b/line-range.c
>>> index 323399d16..023aee1f5 100644
>>> --- a/line-range.c
>>> +++ b/line-range.c
>>> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static const char *parse_loc(const c
My intention was to modify existing behaviour as little as possible,
but I agree clipping to the first line makes a lot more sense. That
raises the question though, do we clip to 1 and treat -L,-n as a valid
input, or clip to -1 so that this case be detected?
On 27/4/18 10:50 am, Junio C Hamano wr
isteph...@atlassian.com writes:
> diff --git a/line-range.c b/line-range.c
> index 323399d16..023aee1f5 100644
> --- a/line-range.c
> +++ b/line-range.c
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static const char *parse_loc(const char *spec,
> nth_line_fn_t nth_line,
> else if (!num)
>
From: Isabella Stephens
If the -L option is used to specify a line range in git blame, and the
end of the range is past the end of the file, git will fail with a fatal
error. This commit prevents such behavior - instead we display the blame
for existing lines within the specified range. Tests and
6 matches
Mail list logo
