> There has been no answer to my comments in:
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/CAP8UFD3SWNu=btPxV2vV=neyrofbgkpzz_wlvsjbv6bkjro...@mail.gmail.com/
>
> especially the part related to the "-o avoid-cdn=badcdn.example.com"
> example that Jonathan Nieder gave.
It seems to me that if you use a server
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:53 PM Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> > * jt/fetch-cdn-offload (2019-03-12) 9 commits
> > - SQUASH???
> > - upload-pack: send part of packfile response as uri
> > - fetch-pack: support more than one pack lockfile
> > - upload-pack: refactor reading of pack-objects out
> > -
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:51:04AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > * jt/fetch-cdn-offload (2019-03-12) 9 commits
> [...]
>
> Sorry for getting back to you late on this. The current status is that
> v2 (this version) looks good to me, except that not many people seems to
> be interested in this - I
On 22/04/2019 18:51, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> * jt/fetch-cdn-offload (2019-03-12) 9 commits
>> - SQUASH???
>> - upload-pack: send part of packfile response as uri
>> - fetch-pack: support more than one pack lockfile
>> - upload-pack: refactor reading of pack-objects out
>> - Documentation: ad
> * jt/fetch-cdn-offload (2019-03-12) 9 commits
> - SQUASH???
> - upload-pack: send part of packfile response as uri
> - fetch-pack: support more than one pack lockfile
> - upload-pack: refactor reading of pack-objects out
> - Documentation: add Packfile URIs design doc
> - Documentation: ord
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:28:42AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Santiago Torres Arias wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the second what's cooking that's gone by without mention of the
> > RFC patch regarding verify_tag[1]. Is this due to lack of interest or is
>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Santiago Torres Arias wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 03:10:30PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
> > '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
> > '+' are in 'ne
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 03:10:30PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
> '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
> '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of
> the integration branche
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of
the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them.
You can find the changes described
9 matches
Mail list logo
