Jelmer Vernooij

Yes, this limitation still exists. I'm keen to get this fixed before 0.20. On 23 January 2019 15:51:13 GMT, Alex Sheluchin wrote: >> Dulwich currently doesn't do any merging, including...

No, it refers to a three-way merge. You're describing a fast-forward operation, which would also be useful to implement but is different.

The merge has to be applied in the working directory, rather than as a commit. This is because there can be conflicts. On 22 February 2019 01:39:15 GMT-08:00, Lane Barlow...

I was aware of the directory order issue (it's really useful to see some stats) and I believe dulwich should reject them (preferable) or properly roundtrip them. FTR I would...

There are a couple things we could do here, with decreasing levels of surprise/corruption for users: 1) Don't support 100% roundtripping, simply parsing odd corner cases; this leads to surprises...

I haven't forgotten about this but haven't managed to take the time to dive deep. May take another week or two.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as this - this changes the API of porcelain.status(), breaking any existing callers.

This still changes the API - any code in applications that use dulwich that expected bytestrings will now receive plain strings and break.

We need to figure out a path forward - if we change this, it's going break everybody who relies on this API. There are a couple of possibilities: * We...

It's currently just raised for a 401, not for a 407. We could possibly raise a different exception for HTTPProxyUnauthorized. I've updated the exception in trunk to include the URL.