Re: [PATCH] gitk: fix the display of files when filtered by path

On Dec 15, 2011 8:01 PM, "Martin von Zweigbergk" <
martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, David Aguilar wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Pat Thoyts
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Launching 'gitk -- .' or 'gitk -- ..\t' restricts the display to

files

quoted

quoted

quoted

under the given directory but the file list is left empty. This is

because

quoted

quoted

quoted

the path_filter function fails to match the filenames which are

relative

quoted

quoted

quoted

to the working tree to the filter which is filessytem relative.
This solves the problem by making both names fully qualified

filesystem

quoted

quoted

quoted

paths before performing the comparison.

How is this related to my patches from April? See
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/170853. It's
clearly not the same problem, but will the patches conflict? Will some
of mine be unnecessary?

quoted

Thanks for reminding me that I did not yet apply and push. Did so now.

What do you mean by this? Push to where?
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git is still down.

This is about msysgit as I also posted this there.

Paul and Junio, the patches I sent in April are still not in git.git,
are they? Can we use another repo until the kernel.org one is up? More
than eight months to get a patch (or eight) merged is way too long,
IMO.

Martin

I'm not sure how this might relate to your patches. I've got a version
merged on top of the last version of the gitk report that I have which
includes those and it seems fine. As stated I did this work against
git-core as the gitk repository continues to be unavailable. However as I
have a pretty current snapshot  I have pushed this to github to provide
some visibility of things I know are not present within git-core. See
http://github.com/patthoyts/gitk.git
On Dec 15, 2011 8:01 PM, "Martin von Zweigbergk" <
martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> wrote: