Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: really allow running in a bare repository

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

 



Hi,

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Eric Kidd wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > When checking if running in a bare repository, the work tree has to be
> > reset, otherwise we will be checking the temporary state, which is
> > always non-bare.
> 
> Just a few minutes after you posted this patch, I posted a
> nearly-identical fix for the same issue:
> 
>   http://marc.info/?l=git&m=123368695831812&w=2
> 
> (My patch includes a test case, too, but it's not very important.)

So clearly yours is superior.

> This raises another interesting question: Why doesn't 'git
> filter-branch' actually check whether subcommands succeed?

That's unintentional; AFAIR there was a "set -e" in cg-admin-rewritehist 
that I tried to do away with by introducing explicit '&&' conjunctions 
where needed.

So all those unchecked subcommands are bugs.

Thanks,
Dscho

--
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]

  Powered by Linux