Jeff King writes:
> If we could reliably tell the difference between those two cases, it
> might be worth doing the up-front check. But I'm not sure we can do that
> without declaring that people in the ff-only case should be using a
> different workflow (e.g., fetch + "reset --hard").
Yup, it _
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 04:56:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Ardill writes:
>
> > Is there any reason `git pull` can't delay that check until the point
> > where it actually tries to create a new commit? It's fair enough to
> > error if a new commit needs to be made, and there is no
Andrew Ardill writes:
> Is there any reason `git pull` can't delay that check until the point
> where it actually tries to create a new commit? It's fair enough to
> error if a new commit needs to be made, and there is no user
> configured, but for the use cases discussed here it seems a little
>
Hi Anatoli,
On 21 August 2017 at 07:57, Anatolii Borodin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Andrew Ardill
> wrote:
>> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but if that's the case then
>> can't we just do the identity check when trying to make new commits,
>> in which case you should be a
Hi Andrew,
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but if that's the case then
> can't we just do the identity check when trying to make new commits,
> in which case you should be able to pull without setting your
> identity?
`git pull` is `g
Hi Jeffrey,
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> *** Please tell me who you are.
Which version of git do you use? Do you have user.useConfigOnly set to
true anywhere in the config files?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Anatolii Borodin
On 20 August 2017 at 19:18, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 02:02:09PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
>> > Hasn't this been asked and answered already?
>> >
>> >
>> > https://public-inbox.org/git/cacbzzx4veod-4a-ek-ubxmfrb1glsvjkxhw51whcsbczdh7...@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> Its 2017. I'
On Sun, 2017-08-20 at 05:18 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Ironically, Git used to behave as you requested in 2005. After being
> bombarded with complaints about how Git was too lax in creating commits
> with bogus ident information, we changed it in 2012. So I don't think
> "it's 2017" carries any weig
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 02:02:09PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Hasn't this been asked and answered already?
> >
> >
> > https://public-inbox.org/git/cacbzzx4veod-4a-ek-ubxmfrb1glsvjkxhw51whcsbczdh7...@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Its 2017. I'd like the tools to work for me instead of me working
Why you can't just set username as name and username@hostname as mail?
You'll do it once and it will be preserved for future. If you use
various accounts for testing, use --system flag for config to store
the values in /etc. If you don't want to modify the environment, use
--local (or no flag) to p
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeffrey Walton writes:
>
>> Is it possible to fix the issue shown below?
>>
>> I'm on a test machine. All I do is update to the latest code, build
>> the library and run the self tests.
>>
>> The test user account does not have a name and
Jeffrey Walton writes:
> Is it possible to fix the issue shown below?
>
> I'm on a test machine. All I do is update to the latest code, build
> the library and run the self tests.
>
> The test user account does not have a name and does not have an email
> address. There's nothing to provide.
>
>
Is it possible to fix the issue shown below?
I'm on a test machine. All I do is update to the latest code, build
the library and run the self tests.
The test user account does not have a name and does not have an email
address. There's nothing to provide.
There's no reason to break my workflows
13 matches
Mail list logo
