On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:43:34AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:00 PM, brian m. carlson
> wrote:
> > You've increased this by 20, but you're adding 40 characters to the
> > strcpy. Are you sure that's enough?
> >
> > Also, you might consider writing this in terms of GIT_SH
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:00 PM, brian m. carlson
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:12:21PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
>> index f080e93..6bd6a64 100644
>> --- a/transport.c
>> +++ b/transport.c
>> @@ -657,16 +657,17 @@ static void print_ok_ref_status(struc
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Sorry to chime in so late in the discussion, but I think that the
> `--force-with-lease` option is what you are looking for. It allows you to
> force-push *but only* if the forced push would overwrite the ref we expect,
> i.e. (simpl
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-06-09 16:06, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>> On 06/09/2015 05:42 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>> From a thread on Hacker News. It seems that if a user does not have
>>> access to the remote's reflog and accidentally forces a push to
Hi,
On 2015-06-09 16:06, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 05:42 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> From a thread on Hacker News. It seems that if a user does not have
>> access to the remote's reflog and accidentally forces a push to a ref,
>> how does he recover it? In order to force push again to r
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:12:21PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
> index f080e93..6bd6a64 100644
> --- a/transport.c
> +++ b/transport.c
> @@ -657,16 +657,17 @@ static void print_ok_ref_status(struct ref *ref, int
> porcelain)
> "[new branc
On 06/09/2015 07:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>
>>> This patch prints the latest SHA-1 before the forced push in full. He
>>> then can do
>>>
>>> git push +:
>>>
>>> He does not even need to have the objects that refers
>>> to. W
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
> > This patch prints the latest SHA-1 before the forced push in full. He
> > then can do
> >
> > git push +:
> >
> > He does not even need to have the objects that refers
> > to. We could simply push an empty pack and the t
On 06/09/2015 05:42 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> From a thread on Hacker News. It seems that if a user does not have
> access to the remote's reflog and accidentally forces a push to a ref,
> how does he recover it? In order to force push again to revert it
> back, he would need to know the remote's old
Duy Nguyen writes:
> From a thread on Hacker News. It seems that if a user does not have
> access to the remote's reflog and accidentally forces a push to a ref,
> how does he recover it? In order to force push again to revert it
> back, he would need to know the remote's old SHA-1. Local reflog
>From a thread on Hacker News. It seems that if a user does not have
access to the remote's reflog and accidentally forces a push to a ref,
how does he recover it? In order to force push again to revert it
back, he would need to know the remote's old SHA-1. Local reflog does
not help because remote
11 matches
Mail list logo
