git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
May 20, 2017, 23:21 UTC
Message-ID
<xmqqh90fru68.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To
<fe9ca677-1f38-4b61-a610-9f8ab014daff@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu'
> branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11,
> t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit
> (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted
> the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name()
> function.

Thanks. My earlier "oh, cutoff that was long also is a timestamp" patch was what I did while making this exact "evil merge" change, and then when I re-integrated everything, I forgot about it.

I'll teach my rerere database about this.  Thanks.
Previous: Ramsay Jones
Message 3 of 3 in “name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name”
  1. name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_nameEric Wong, May 20, 2017
  2. Ramsay JonesMay 20, 2017
  3. Junio C HamanoMay 20, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.