On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 05:58:24PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> wrote: > > rev-list --bisect is used by git bisect, but never together with > > --first-parent. Because rev-list --bisect together with --first-parent > > is not handled currently, and even leads to segfaults, refuse to use > > both options together. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> > > Suggested-by: Junio C. Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> > > It's customary for your sign-off to be last. >
Ok, noted > > --- > > diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > > b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > > index 4ed8587..05c3f6d 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > > @@ -123,7 +123,8 @@ parents) and `--max-parents=-1` (negative numbers > > denote no upper limit). > > because merges into a topic branch tend to be only about > > adjusting to updated upstream from time to time, and > > this option allows you to ignore the individual commits > > - brought in to your history by such a merge. > > + brought in to your history by such a merge. Cannot be > > + combined with --bisect. > > A couple questions: > > Should the documentation for ---bisect be updated to mention this > restriction also? Was doubting whether that was necessary as --bisect can be seen as a mode, and --first-parent modifying that mode. But it can make sense to also add it to that section. > > Should this change be protected by a "ifndef::git-rev-list[]" as are > all other mentions of "bisect" in rev-list-options.txt? Yes, I see why. git log also uses rev-list-options.txt and it has a --bisect option that is unrelated to this one, so that comment doesn't make sense for git log. Will reroll this later. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
