1. 29 7月, 2010 2 次提交
    • Æ
      SubmittingPatches: Clarify the Signed-off-by rules · 6a58696f
      Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 提交于
      The wording of the Signed-off-by rules could be read as stating that
      S-O-B should only be added when the submitter considered the patch
      ready for inclusion in git.git.
      
      We also want Signed-off-by to be used for e.g. RFC patches, in case
      someone wants to dig an old patch out of the archive and improve
      it. Change the wording to recommend a Signed-off-by for all submitted
      patches.
      
      The problem with the wording came up in the "[PATCH/RFC] Hacky version
      of a glob() driven config include" thread[1]. Bert Wesarg suggested[2]
      that it be removed to avoid confusion, which this change implements.
      
        1. <1273180440-8641-1-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com>
        2. <AANLkTimziTKL13VKIOcaS1TX1F_xvTVjH8Q398Yx36Us@mail.gmail.com>
      Suggested-by: NBert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      6a58696f
    • N
      upload-pack: remove unused "create_full_pack" code in do_rev_list · 1e39d7de
      Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy 提交于
      A bit of history in chronological order, the newest at bottom:
      
      - 80ccaa78 (upload-pack: Move the revision walker into a separate function.)
         do_rev_list was introduced with create_full_pack argument
      
      - 21edd3f1 (upload-pack: Run rev-list in an asynchronous function.)
         do_rev_list was now called by start_async, create_full_pack was
         passed by rev_list.data
      
      - f0cea83f (Shift object enumeration out of upload-pack)
         rev_list.data was now zero permanently. Creating full pack was
         done by passing --all to pack-objects
      
      - ae6a5609 (run-command: support custom fd-set in async)
         rev_list.data = 0 was found out redudant and got rid of.
      
      Get rid of the code as well, for less headache while reading do_rev_list.
      
      [jc: noticed by Elijah Newren]
      Signed-off-by: NNguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      1e39d7de
  2. 28 7月, 2010 11 次提交
  3. 26 7月, 2010 16 次提交
  4. 24 7月, 2010 3 次提交
  5. 22 7月, 2010 4 次提交
  6. 21 7月, 2010 4 次提交
    • B
      t/{t5541,lib-httpd}: replace problematic '!()' notation with test_must_fail · 77b5be2a
      Brandon Casey 提交于
      The '!()' notation is interpreted as a pattern-list on Ksh.  The Ksh man
      page describe it as follows:
      
         !(pattern-list)
            Matches anything except one of the given patterns.
      
      Ksh performs a file glob using the pattern-list and then tries to execute
      the first file in the list.  If a space is added between the '!' and the
      open parens, then Ksh will not interpret it as a pattern list, but in this
      case, it is preferred to use test_must_fail, so lets do so.
      Signed-off-by: NBrandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      77b5be2a
    • B
      t/t3700: convert two uses of negation operator '!' to use test_must_fail · 460d562e
      Brandon Casey 提交于
      These two lines use the negation '!' operator to negate the result of a
      simple command.  Since these commands do not contain any pipes or other
      complexities, the test_must_fail function can be used and is preferred
      since it will additionally detect termination due to a signal.
      
      This was noticed because the second use of '!' does not include a space
      between the '!' and the opening parens.  Ksh interprets this as follows:
      
         !(pattern-list)
            Matches anything except one of the given patterns.
      
      Ksh performs a file glob using the pattern-list and then tries to execute
      the first file in the list.  If a space is added between the '!' and the
      open parens, then Ksh will not interpret it as a pattern list, but in this
      case, it is preferred to use test_must_fail, so lets do so.
      Signed-off-by: NBrandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      460d562e
    • J
      Merge branch 'maint' · 5f7baac1
      Junio C Hamano 提交于
      * maint:
        t/README: clarify test_must_fail description
        Check size of path buffer before writing into it
      
      Conflicts:
      	t/README
      5f7baac1
    • B
      t/README: clarify test_must_fail description · 971ecbd1
      Brandon Casey 提交于
      Some have found the wording of the description to be somewhat ambiguous
      with respect to when it is desirable to use test_must_fail instead of
      "! <git-command>".  Tweak the wording somewhat to hopefully clarify that
      it is _because_ test_must_fail can detect segmentation fault that it is
      desirable to use it instead of "! <git-command>".
      Signed-off-by: NBrandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      971ecbd1