From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-pack: respect '+' on wildcard refspecs Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:27:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20071019122755.GA17002@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071019090400.GA8944@coredump.intra.peff.net> <449c10960710190510y3af3ffa2ydb9ae4a01b5d480c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Dan McGee X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 19 14:28:14 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IiqxX-0002ve-5T for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:28:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757060AbXJSM17 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:27:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757399AbXJSM17 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:27:59 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2405 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755781AbXJSM16 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:27:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 12427 invoked by uid 111); 19 Oct 2007 12:27:57 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:27:57 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:27:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <449c10960710190510y3af3ffa2ydb9ae4a01b5d480c@mail.gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 07:10:42AM -0500, Dan McGee wrote: > Hmm. For some reason this passes with your test case, but not with my > original bash test script[1]. Did you try it with this? > > [1] http://www.toofishes.net/uploads/ [please trim quoted text; I had a hard time finding your message amidst the patch] I didn't try it until you sent your message, but your test seems to work fine for me. My patch is on top of 'next', which is what I usually run. I haven't looked into 'master' (I assumed since the bug was reproducible in both, it would be the same in both, but that is perhaps not the case). -Peff