"Dmitry S. Dolzhenko" writes:
> Use ALLOC_GROW() instead inline code in
> diffstat_add() and diff_q()
"...instead of open coding it in..." may read better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry S. Dolzhenko
> ---
> diff.c | 12 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --gi
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> On 01.03.2014, at 00:26, Conley Owens wrote:
>
>> $ git --version # This is just the git from MacPorts
>> git version 1.8.5.5
>> $ sw_vers
>> ProductName:Mac OS X
>> ProductVersion: 10.8.5
>> BuildVersion: 12F45
>
> I cannot reproduce thi
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
> We used to show "(missing )" next to tests skipped because they are
> specified in GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Use "(matched by GIT_SKIP_TESTS)" instead.
Bikeshedding: That's pretty verbose. Perhaps just say "(excluded)"?
> ---
> t/test-lib.sh | 13 +++
On 03.03.2014, at 20:43, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Tanay Abhra writes:
>
>> @@ -1193,9 +1194,9 @@ static void parse_gpg_output(struct signature_check
>> *sigc)
>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sigcheck_gpg_status); i++) {
>> const char *found, *next;
>>
>> -if (start
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
> This is a counterpart to GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Mostly useful when debugging.
To be grammatically similar to GIT_SKIP_TESTS, perhaps name it GIT_RUN_TESTS?
> ---
> t/README | 15 +++
> t/test-lib.sh |8
> 2 files chan
> Dmitry S. Dolzhenko (14):
> builtin/pack-objects.c: use ALLOC_GROW() in check_pbase_path()
> bundle.c: use ALLOC_GROW() in add_to_ref_list()
> cache-tree.c: use ALLOC_GROW() in find_subtree()
> commit.c: use ALLOC_GROW() in register_commit_graft()
> diff.c: use ALLOC_GROW()
> diffcore
On 3/3/2014 7:11 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Ilya Bobyr"
We used to show "(missing )" next to tests skipped because they are
specified in GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Use "(matched by GIT_SKIP_TESTS)" instead.
The message below forgets the "by".
I'll fix the commit message. I think the output is l
On 3/3/2014 2:59 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
We used to show "(missing )" next to tests skipped because they are
specified in GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Use "(matched by GIT_SKIP_TESTS)" instead.
Bikeshedding: That's pretty verbose. Perhaps just say "(exclu
Eric Sunshine writes:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
>> We used to show "(missing )" next to tests skipped because they are
>> specified in GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Use "(matched by GIT_SKIP_TESTS)" instead.
>
> Bikeshedding: That's pretty verbose. Perhaps just say "(excluded)"?
So
On 3/3/2014 3:03 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
This is a counterpart to GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Mostly useful when debugging.
To be grammatically similar to GIT_SKIP_TESTS, perhaps name it GIT_RUN_TESTS?
There is actually an upside in the fact that the n
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
> On 3/3/2014 2:59 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
>>>
>>> We used to show "(missing )" next to tests skipped because they are
>>> specified in GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Use "(matched by GIT_SKIP_TESTS)" ins
Junio C Hamano writes:
> --- a/git-compat-util.h
> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
> @@ -357,8 +357,14 @@ extern int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char
> *suffix);
>
> static inline const char *skip_prefix(const char *str, const char *prefix)
> {
> - size_t len = strlen(prefix);
> - retur
David,
OK, I did as you suggested, and the results were revealing.
First, I replaced "echo" with "cat". Result: The contents of both files
appeared in the Git Bash Window.
Then I tried calling LVCompare from the Git Bash and Windows Command Prompt
windows with variations on the paths.
Here a
Eric Sunshine writes:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
>> This is a counterpart to GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Mostly useful when debugging.
>
> To be grammatically similar to GIT_SKIP_TESTS, perhaps name it GIT_RUN_TESTS?
I actually do not like the interface to use two variables very m
David Kastrup writes:
> How about a function body of
>
> do {
> if (!*prefix)
> return str;
> } while (*str++ == *prefix++);
> return NULL;
>
> I'm not too fond of while (1) and tend to use for (;;) instead, but that
> may again partly be
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
> index cbd86c3..68ffaef 100644
> --- a/git-compat-util.h
> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
> @@ -357,8 +357,14 @@ extern int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char
> *suffix);
>
> static inline con
Eric Sunshine writes:
> That new message in patch #2 says "not in GIT_TEST_ONLY", but isn't
> "(excluded)" also applicable to that case? Is it important to be able
> to distinguish between the two "excluded" reasons?
An obvious solution is not to *have* two reasons in the first place
;-)
--
To u
Max Horn writes:
> On 03.03.2014, at 20:43, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Tanay Abhra writes:
>>
>>> @@ -1193,9 +1194,9 @@ static void parse_gpg_output(struct signature_check
>>> *sigc)
>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sigcheck_gpg_status); i++) {
>>> const char *found, *next;
>>>
On 3/3/2014 3:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Eric Sunshine writes:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
This is a counterpart to GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Mostly useful when debugging.
To be grammatically similar to GIT_SKIP_TESTS, perhaps name it GIT_RUN_TESTS?
I actually do not like th
On 3/3/2014 3:18 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
On 3/3/2014 2:59 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ilya Bobyr wrote:
We used to show "(missing )" next to tests skipped because they are
specified in GIT_SKIP_TESTS. Use "(matc
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:23 AM, karthik nayak wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> Thanks for Pointing out everything, i had a thorough look and fixed a
> couple of things.
> Here is an Updated Patch.
> - Removed unnecessary code and variables.
> - Replaced all instances of starts_with() with skip_prefix()
Th
Ilya Bobyr writes:
> It might be that we are looking at different use cases, as you are
> talking about whole test suits.
I do not think so.
I do not see anything prevents you from saying
GIT_SKIP_TESTS='t !t.1 !t.4'
to specify test-pieces in individual tests so that you c
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
>> index cbd86c3..68ffaef 100644
>> --- a/git-compat-util.h
>> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
>> @@ -357,8 +357,14 @@ extern int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char
>> *su
Redirection operators should have a space before them, but not after them.
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Notarstefano
---
git-bisect.sh | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
index 73b4c14..af4d04c 100755
--- a/git-bisect.sh
+++ b/git-bi
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:26:28PM -0800, Conley Owens wrote:
>
>> test.sh
>> "
>> #!/bin/bash
>> rungit() {
>> mkdir $1
>> GIT_DIR=$1 git init --bare
>> echo '[remote "aosp"]' > $1/config
>> e
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 01:09:39AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
> >> index cbd86c3..68ffaef 100644
> >> --- a/git-compat-util.h
> >> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
> >
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
> wrote:
>> "git rebase -e XYZ" is basically the same as
>>
>> EDITOR="sed -i '1s/pick XYZ/edit XYZ/' $@" \
>> git rebase -i XYZ^
>>
>> In English, it prepares the todo list for you to edi
Jacopo Notarstefano writes:
> Redirection operators should have a space before them, but not after them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Notarstefano
> ---
Looks obviously harmless ;-)
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vge
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> On 2014-03-01 13.12, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
>> ---
>> cache.h | 2 ++
>> wrapper.c | 31 +++
>> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/cache.h b
On 3/3/2014 4:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ilya Bobyr writes:
It might be that we are looking at different use cases, as you are
talking about whole test suits.
I do not think so.
Good :)
I am trying to understand the use cases. And make sure we are talking
about the same ones.
I am not
On 03/03/2014 11:29 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> [...]
> Multiple students seem to be hitting the same microprojects (aka "we
> are running out of micros"), which might be a bit unfortunate. I
> think the original plan might have been that for a student candidate
> to pass, his-or-her patch must hi
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
