1. 16 7月, 2015 3 次提交
  2. 26 6月, 2015 12 次提交
  3. 25 6月, 2015 1 次提交
    • C
      Fix definition of ARRAY_SIZE for non-gcc builds · e2c6f7cd
      Charles Bailey 提交于
      The improved ARRAY_SIZE macro uses BARF_UNLESS_AN_ARRAY which expands
      to a valid check for recent gcc versions and to 0 for older gcc
      versions but is not defined on non-gcc builds.
      
      Non-gcc builds need this macro to expand to 0 as well. The current outer
      test (defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ >= 3)) is a strictly weaker
      condition than the inner test (GIT_GNUC_PREREQ(3, 1)) so we can omit the
      outer test and cause the BARF_UNLESS_AN_ARRAY macro to be defined
      correctly on non-gcc builds as well as gcc builds with older versions.
      Signed-off-by: NCharles Bailey <cbailey32@bloomberg.net>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      e2c6f7cd
  4. 17 6月, 2015 14 次提交
  5. 16 6月, 2015 1 次提交
    • J
      Revert "stash: require a clean index to apply" · 19376104
      Jeff King 提交于
      This reverts commit ed178ef1.
      
      That commit was an attempt to improve the safety of applying
      a stash, because the application process may create
      conflicted index entries, after which it is hard to restore
      the original index state.
      
      Unfortunately, this hurts some common workflows around "git
      stash -k", like:
      
          git add -p       ;# (1) stage set of proposed changes
          git stash -k     ;# (2) get rid of everything else
          make test        ;# (3) make sure proposal is reasonable
          git stash apply  ;# (4) restore original working tree
      
      If you "git commit" between steps (3) and (4), then this
      just works. However, if these steps are part of a pre-commit
      hook, you don't have that opportunity (you have to restore
      the original state regardless of whether the tests passed or
      failed).
      
      It's possible that we could provide better tools for this
      sort of workflow. In particular, even before ed178ef1, it
      could fail with a conflict if there were conflicting hunks
      in the working tree and index (since the "stash -k" puts the
      index version into the working tree, and we then attempt to
      apply the differences between HEAD and the old working tree
      on top of that). But the fact remains that people have been
      using it happily for a while, and the safety provided by
      ed178ef1 is simply not that great. Let's revert it for now.
      In the long run, people can work on improving stash for this
      sort of workflow, but the safety tradeoff is not worth it in
      the meantime.
      Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
      Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      19376104
  6. 15 6月, 2015 1 次提交
  7. 13 6月, 2015 5 次提交
  8. 10 6月, 2015 1 次提交
  9. 06 6月, 2015 2 次提交