On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:21:01PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:11:08AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > Do we really need a commit integer numbers after the transition? I know
> > > we're used to it.
> > > But git commit hash provides that same.
> >
> > Revision numbers are nice short text strings, and from a revision number
> > you can see approximately when it happened, and from two revision numbers
> > on the same branch you can trivially tell which one is older. Those are
> > nice features. But we can live without it, IMO.
>
> Since I do many bisections a day, losing this capability would be Very Bad.
> Without it, there's no range, and without a range, there's nothing to
> _bisect_.
>
> I bisect by hand, so if I have cc1plus.250000 (good) and cc1plus.260000 (bad),
> I know the commit I'm looking for is within that range, and I can easily split
> the range, and it's at most log n steps. Whereas if we had e.g.
> cc1plus.de28b0
> and cc1plus.a9bd4d, I couldn't do it anymore.
Git can bisect automatically just fine, there is no upside to doing things
manually. In git there are various handy ways of referring to commits; you
can say master@{3 days ago} for example, or zut@{31} to get the 31st
commit back on branch "zut", etc. See "man gitrevisions".
Segher
