Git Rebase Patch Does Not Have A Valid Email Address
Git rebase --interactive squash/squish. Immediately after finishing the three-patch series: $ git rebase -i HEAD~4. It assumes that you never have valid commit. Viewing messages in thread 'git rebase fails with: Patch does not have a valid e-mail address.' Git git change-tracking tool 2018-01-01 - 2018-02-01 (1076 messages). Email Address Password. Require that all modules have valid signatures that we can verify. This code was showed in Matthew's patch but not in git: https.
Having said that, I somehow doubt that verify-signatures is a feature that is desirable in a workflow around 'pull -rebase' in the larger picture. If you step back a bit, in a 'merge' based workflow, you are the keeper of the sanity, cleanliness, and all the good things in the authoritative history when doing a 'git pull'. That is why you would want to validate what gets merged from another place and in that context having -verify-signatures may make sense (and it might even make more sense if the code did so for all new commits, not just the tip, but that is a separate topic). If the validation fails, you would tell the owner of that side branch you just attempted to pull from to get her act together before asking to be pulled again. There is a clear path to make further progress after the validation fails. In a workflow that is built around 'pull -rebase', you are given the authoritative history with all the good things from another place and then you rebuild your own work on top of it. The sanity and cleanliness of what you built on top is given, and rejecting it at that point would not help you make further progress in any wayas that is a published history that is shared and more authoritative than what you have.
Well, the rejection would not refer to the work you put on top, but to the commits you want to base your work on. If validation fails, then an empty commit that is signed can be committed on top of the previously unsigned branch if commit rewriting is not allowed. Hence, while I 100% agree with Brian's 'it is not there because nobody bothered to add the corresponding option on the rebase side'I do not necessarily think 'nobody bothered' is the same as 'they were too lazy'-perhaps some people thought about doing it, and then decided not to, because the option made no sense when they stepped back to look at the larger picture.
That's why I was asking in my first mail if such an addition would make sense. I don't really have an agenda or a pressing need for this feature, I just noticed that a `git pull -rebase -verify-signatures` did not complain when it looked like it ought to. If this patch gets rejected then I will propose one which makes git-pull warn, or even error, when both -rebase and -verify-signatures is passed. Regards, Alexander Hirsch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line 'unsubscribe git' in the body of a message to More majordomo info. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: In a workflow that is built around 'pull -rebase', you are given the authoritative history with all the good things from another place and then you rebuild your own work on top of it. The sanity and cleanliness of what you built on top is given, and rejecting it at that point would not help you make further progress in any wayas that is a published history that is shared and more authoritative than what you have.
Well, the rejection would not refer to the work you put on top, but to the commits you want to base your work on. If validation fails, then an empty commit that is signed can be committed on top of the previously unsigned branch if commit rewriting is not allowed. I do not quite understand how that would help anything.
Give More Feedback
I do not personally believe in projects that wants to sign each and every commit, but to them, 'an empty signed commit on top' would not fix anything once they have an unsigned commit at the tip of a public branch. And for those that care about only the tip to be signed, instead of adding such an empty commit, you would rebuild and sign your work on top of that unsigned public tip and push back-at which point the tip of the public branch would have a signature from you.
So such an empty signed commit would either not help, or not necessary, to make the resulting history kosher again. To unsubscribe from this list: send the line 'unsubscribe git' in the body of a message to More majordomo info. I do not quite understand how that would help anything. I do not personally believe in projects that wants to sign each and every commit, but to them, 'an empty signed commit on top' would not fix anything once they have an unsigned commit at the tip of a public branch.
See More On Stackoverflow
And for those that care about only the tip to be signedinstead of adding such an empty commit, you would rebuild and sign your work on top of that unsigned public tip and push back-at which point the tip of the public branch would have a signature from you. So such an empty signed commit would either not help, or not necessary, to make the resulting history kosher again. Checking all commits was a mistake I made because of misinterpreting the git-merge code. Only the tip should be checked for a signature. And the reason to get it signed instead of just signing the commits rebased on top is to defer to the judgement of the author of the branch you're rebasing onto instead of checking the unsigned commits for validity yourself. As I understand it, this is the same reason for the existence of -verify-signatures for git-merge. Otherwise the same argument could be made for git-merge - just do whatever cleanup you need after merging and sign it yourself.
Or maybe I haven't grasped what -verify-signatures is for. To unsubscribe from this list: send the line 'unsubscribe git' in the body of a message to More majordomo info. Alexander 'z33ky' Hirsch writes: As I understand it, this is the same reason for the existence of -verify-signatures for git-merge. Otherwise the same argument could be made for git-merge I suspect that you are missing the bigger workflow issues, if you think this and merge are the same.
Git-merge will check the other history on the side branch that you are merging into the trunk, to give you an opportunity to reject what does not pass and keep the trunk sane without doing anything else. How you (or others who asked you to pull) clean up the side branch is outside the scope of its verification. Your change to 'git pull -rebase' checks the other way-the history, which is already the trunk, onto which your work will be rebased. There is nothing you can do without messing with the trunk if the validation did not pass, be it with a rewind-and-rebuild or a sealing empty commit which is pointless. To unsubscribe from this list: send the line 'unsubscribe git' in the body of a message to More majordomo info.
Alexander 'z33ky' Hirsch writes: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:22:20AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: I suspect that you are missing the bigger workflow issues, if you think this and merge are the same. git-merge will check the other history on the side branch that you are merging into the trunk, to give you an opportunity to reject what does not pass and keep the trunk sane without doing anything else.
How you (or others who asked you to pull) clean up the side branch is outside the scope of its verification. Your change to 'git pull -rebase' checks the other way-the history, which is already the trunk, onto which your work will be rebased. There is nothing you can do without messing with the trunk if the validation did not pass, be it with a rewind-and-rebuild or a sealing empty commit which is pointless. It would still make sense for long-lived development branches that contain experimental or controversial features, or for forks/private copies that add a couple of commits onto a branch. Merging is certainly an option, but I don't see why rebasing would be a wrong alternative. Nobody says rebase is a wrong alternative. It is just the time you decide to rebase is a wrong time to checkiow, too late, for the validation of the tip.
In that case I would like to submit a patch that warns or even errors in case both -rebase and -verify-signatures is passed to git-pull. I think an error would be appropriate, but in theory this could break scripts that have done that, albeit it probably didn't do what the user expected, and I don't know git's policy about breaking something like this. To unsubscribe from this list: send the line 'unsubscribe git' in the body of a message to More majordomo info.
Best How To: Looking at, this particular prompt is displayed where there is a.git/rebase-apply/applying file. That should means the path was applied with conflict. Or, in this instance, that the patch wasn't applied fully ( Patch does not have a valid e-mail address) The status is clear:. use ' git am -skip' to skip this patch.
use ' git am -abort' to restore the original branch As a workaround, in order to apply that patch, you an have a look at '. either use git apply. or edit the patch to add the proper email.
The root cause has been found: Because my computer use a web proxy, so I need to set proxy in environment variable: C: Users xiaonaset httpsproxy=C: Users xiaonaset httpproxy=C: Users xiaonago get -v gopkg.in/fatih/pool.v2 Fetching Parsing meta tags from (status code 200) get 'gopkg.in/fatih/pool.v2': found meta tag main.metaImportPrefix:'gopkg.in/fa tih/pool.v2', VCS:'git'.