Re: [PATCH 0/16] make prune mtime-checking more careful

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 03:22:10PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> This applied on top of 'maint' (which does have c40fdd01) makes the
> test #9 (prune: do not prune detached HEAD with no reflog) fail.

I'll fix the bone-headed error returns that René noticed and double
check that they were the complete culprit in the test failure you saw
(and not just masking some other problem).

> If we merge 'dt/cache-tree-repair' (which in turn needs
> 'jc/reopen-lock-file') to 'maint' and then apply these on top, the
> said test passes.  But I do not see an apparent reason why X-<.

I suspect it's an unintended interaction that just happens to let my
bogus code code the right thing, but I'll double check on that, too.

Thanks both of you for spotting the problems.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]