Eric Sunshine writes:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:00:37PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>>
>>> > So yeah, the most plausible theory to me so far is unluckiness combined
>>> > with pre-1.8.4.2. That should be easy to disprove if Henning tells us
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:00:37PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
>> > So yeah, the most plausible theory to me so far is unluckiness combined
>> > with pre-1.8.4.2. That should be easy to disprove if Henning tells us
>> > his git version.
>>
>> H
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:00:37PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > So yeah, the most plausible theory to me so far is unluckiness combined
> > with pre-1.8.4.2. That should be easy to disprove if Henning tells us
> > his git version.
>
> Henning mentioned it at the very top of his original proble
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:12:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff King writes:
>>>
>>> > What happens if we rebase with it?
>>> >
>>> > $ git checkout 01319837
>>> > $ git r
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:12:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>> > What happens if we rebase with it?
>> >
>> > $ git checkout 01319837
>> > $ git rebase -i HEAD^
>> >
>> > will yield a todo file with the 8-charac
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:12:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > What happens if we rebase with it?
> >
> > $ git checkout 01319837
> > $ git rebase -i HEAD^
> >
> > will yield a todo file with the 8-character unambiguous abbreviation.
> >
> > So I guess all is worki
Jeff King writes:
> What happens if we rebase with it?
>
> $ git checkout 01319837
> $ git rebase -i HEAD^
>
> will yield a todo file with the 8-character unambiguous abbreviation.
>
> So I guess all is working as intended there. Perhaps you really were
> just very unlucky and an earlier step
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 07:19:15AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Hmm. There are some instances in git where we know we are looking for an
> object of a particular type, and we can disambiguate a short-sha1 based
> on the type. And "git log" is just such a place, whereas a generic "git
> rev-parse" use
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:54:32AM +0100, Henning Moll wrote:
> . error: short SHA1 c4095c1 is ambiguous.
> . fatal: Needed a single revision
> . Invalid commit name: c4095c1
>
> Now that the command failed, i checked for ambigous c4095c1. But there is
> only one:
> $ git log -1 c4095c1
> . comm
Hi,
(git version 2.2.0)
I am currently developing/testing a script for a "history surgery" on a quite
big repository (~3 commits). The script always runs against exactly the
same copy of a git repository. So things should be reproducable, but sometimes
i get failures for the following seq
10 matches
Mail list logo