On 25/10/2007, Yann Dirson <ydirson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Looks like stgit is now more picky on patch names than in used to be: It's not that we explicitly disallows "+" but I think I tried to avoid some wrong patch names but was too lazy to create a better regexp. As a quick fix, we could re-generate a patch name if it is invalid. > => the result of the cloning operation is a partial clone. Do we want to: > > - implement a mechanism for checking beforehand that the operation > will not fail ? Seems awkward to duplicate checks already found > elsewhere. > > - wait for proper transactions so we can rollback on error ? > > - on clone error, delete the newly-created stack ? I'd vote for this > one, until the previous one gets done. I think the last one is the simplest to implement, while the second is nicer, I've never found the time to investigate it properly. -- Catalin - 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
