From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] cvsimport - streamline temp index file creation and avoid creating empty tmpfiles Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:28:57 -0700 Message-ID: <7vr71ex05i.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <11511257501323-git-send-email-martin@catalyst.net.nz> <7vslluyika.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46a038f90606240416n563288f5q99a5ac81723776c3@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Johannes Schindelin" , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 24 13:29:08 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fu6K3-0003DZ-KY for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:29:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932609AbWFXL3A (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:29:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932580AbWFXL3A (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:29:00 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:12452 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752219AbWFXL27 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:28:59 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060624112858.VTHA12581.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:28:58 -0400 To: "Martin Langhoff" In-Reply-To: <46a038f90606240416n563288f5q99a5ac81723776c3@mail.gmail.com> (Martin Langhoff's message of "Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:16:04 +1200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Martin Langhoff" writes: > Johannes, Junio, > > I've managed to repro the problem -- which was totally reproduceable, > I was just testing the wrong version of the script. The problem was > quite obvious: when running an incremental, the first head would not > get the index created properly. Even worse, when forking a new branch, > the index would be empty too. > > Fixed both cases and posted separately. Thanks. Will be in "next".