On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:09:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> writes: > > > 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. > > > > Suggested-by: Junio C. Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> > > Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> > > --- > > Changes since v3: > > > > * Added an ifdef::git-rev-list[] guard around the warning in the > > --first-parent section so that it only shows up in `man git-rev-list` > > and not in `man git log` > > > > * Added the warning also to the --bisect section. > > I wonder what "git log --first-parent --bisect A..B" should do, > though. > > Wouldn't the rejection belong to revision.c::setup_revisions(), > where we reject combined use of (--reverse, --walk-reflogs) and > (--children, --parents), to apply this to all commands in the "log" > family that uses the revision walker machinery? >
git log --bisect seems to do something different then git rev-list --bisect >From git-log(1): Pretend as if the bad bisection ref refs/bisect/bad was listed and as if it was followed by --not and the good bisection refs refs/bisect/good-* on the command line. This seems to just add addition refs to the log command, which seems unrelated to what rev-list --bisect does. So I don't see why git log --bisect --first-parent should be prohibited (unless this combination doesn't make sense on itself). Kevin. -- 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