From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] check_and_freshen_file: fix reversed success-check Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:48:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20150709224830.GA24998@peff.net> References: <20150707141305.GA629@peff.net> <20150707194956.GA13792@peff.net> <559D60DC.4010304@kdbg.org> <20150708180539.GA12353@peff.net> <20150708183331.GA16138@peff.net> <559D9006.20102@kdbg.org> <559EDEE6.1040807@kdbg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?UmVuw6k=?= Scharfe , X H , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 10 00:48:44 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDKcV-00059f-IM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:48:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751255AbbGIWsf (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:48:35 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58384 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750873AbbGIWsd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:48:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 3592 invoked by uid 102); 9 Jul 2015 22:48:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 17:48:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 4039 invoked by uid 107); 9 Jul 2015 22:48:31 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:48:31 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:48:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559EDEE6.1040807@kdbg.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:51:50PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >Ah! That code is less than a year old. When I began to adopt a workflow > >requiring force-pushes lately, I wondered why I haven't seen these > >failures earlier, because I did do force pushes in the past, but not > >that frequently. I thought that I had just been lucky. But this would > >explain it. > > And, in fact, with this patch these particular failures are gone! Thank you > so much! Great, thanks for testing. You can temper your appreciation by noticing that I introduced the bug in the first place. ;) -Peff