On 25/10/2007, Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> wrote:
quoted text
> Looks like stgit is now more picky on patch names than in used to be:

It's not that we explicitly disallows "+" but I think I tried to avoid
some wrong patch names but was too lazy to create a better regexp.

As a quick fix, we could re-generate a patch name if it is invalid.

quoted text
> => the result of the cloning operation is a partial clone.  Do we want to:
>
> - implement a mechanism for checking beforehand that the operation
> will not fail ?  Seems awkward to duplicate checks already found
> elsewhere.
>
> - wait for proper transactions so we can rollback on error ?
>
> - on clone error, delete the newly-created stack ?  I'd vote for this
> one, until the previous one gets done.

I think the last one is the simplest to implement, while the second is
nicer, I've never found the time to investigate it properly.

-- 
Catalin
-
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.html