Hi, On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Mark Levedahl wrote: > Mark Levedahl wrote: > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > > > Would it not be better to say explicitely which refs are expected to be > > > present already (they start with "^" in the output of `git-rev-parse`, > > > but you would need to do a bit more work, since you cannot just take the > > > symbolic names). > > > > > > IMHO reliance on $(git fsck | grep ^missing) is not good. The file check > > > might take very, very long, or use much memory. And you _can_ do better > > > [*1*]. > > > > > Good idea, but I think it is simpler to just keep the ^... output from > > git-rev-parse and check that those exist. What you suggest below seems to > > presume all bases are themselves references, which is not the case when > > doing, for example, master~10..master. > > Examining further, I just don't know how to do this in shell. Basically, > what I want is the list of parents of all bases, I don't think you need the bases. If you say "master~10..master" on the sender side, you want to update master on the receiving side, _after_ you verified that receiver already has "master~10". Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Thu Feb 15 11:15:48 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2007-02-15 11:17:39 EST