Skip to content

G
git

李少辉-开发者 / git
与 Fork 源项目一致

从无法访问的项目Fork

通知 2
Star 1
Fork 0
G
git

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 01 8月, 2013 7 次提交
  3. 31 7月, 2013 3 次提交
  5. 30 7月, 2013 1 次提交
  7. 29 7月, 2013 3 次提交
    • R
      commit-slab.h: Fix memory allocation and addressing · d7a1d629
      由 Ramsay Jones 提交于 
      The slab initialization code includes the calculation of the
slab 'elem_size', which is in turn used to determine the size
(capacity) of the slab. Each element of the slab represents an
array, of length 'stride', of 'elemtype'. (Note that it may be
clearer if the define_commit_slab macro parameter was called
'basetype' rather than 'elemtype'). However, the 'elem_size'
calculation incorrectly uses 'sizeof(struct slabname)' in the
expression, rather than 'sizeof(elemtype)'.

Within the slab access routine, <slabname>_at(), the given commit
'index' is transformed into an (slab#, slot#) pair used to address
the required element (a pointer to the first element of the array
of 'elemtype' associated with that commit). The current code to
calculate these address coordinates multiplies the commit index
by the 'stride' which, at least for the slab#, produces the wrong
result. Using the commit index directly, without scaling by the
'stride', produces the correct 'logical' address.

Also, when allocating a new slab, the size of the allocation only
allows for a slab containing elements of single element arrays of
'elemtype'. This should allow for elements of an array of length
'stride' of 'elemtype'. In order to fix this, we need to change
the element size parameter to xcalloc() by multiplying the current
element size (sizeof(**s->slab)) by the s->stride.

Having changed the calculation of the slot#, we now need to convert
the logical 'nth_slot', by scaling with s->stride, into the correct
physical address.
Signed-off-by: NRamsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      d7a1d629
    • J
      commit: tweak empty cherry pick advice for sequencer · c17592a7
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      When we refuse to make an empty commit, we check whether we
are in a cherry-pick in order to give better advice on how
to proceed. We instruct the user to repeat the commit with
"--allow-empty" to force the commit, or to use "git reset"
to skip it and abort the cherry-pick.

In the case of a single cherry-pick, the distinction between
skipping and aborting is not important, as there is no more
work to be done afterwards.  When we are using the sequencer
to cherry pick a series of commits, though, the instruction
is confusing: does it skip this commit, or does it abort the
rest of the cherry-pick?

It does skip, after which the user can continue the
cherry-pick. This is the right thing to be advising the user
to do, but let's make it more clear what will happen, both
by using the word "skip", and by mentioning that the rest of
the sequence can be continued via "cherry-pick --continue"
(whether we skip or take the commit).
Noticed-by: NRamkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Helped-by: NJonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      c17592a7
    • D
      docs/git-tag: explain lightweight versus annotated tags · 29d55538
      由 Daniele Segato 提交于 
      Stress the difference between the two with a suggestion on
when the user should use one in place of the other.
Signed-off-by: NDaniele Segato <daniele.segato@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Reviewed-by: NJonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      29d55538
  9. 26 7月, 2013 3 次提交
  11. 25 7月, 2013 19 次提交
  13. 24 7月, 2013 4 次提交