Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
I didn't like this example so much because (1) the code snippet is
pretty trivial, and (2) the explanation afterwards is more of a general
explanation of `git bisect` than a description of this particular
example.
I agree that the explanations
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
The reference `refs/bisect/bad` will be left pointing at that commit.
Yeah ok.
I took this one.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
To
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 06/26/2015 03:15 PM, Christian Couder wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Matthieu Moy
matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote:
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM,
On 06/26/2015 03:15 PM, Christian Couder wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Matthieu Moy
matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote:
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
[...]
+Eventually there
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and the
command will print out a description of the first bad commit. The
reference `refs/bisect/bad` created by bisect will point at that
commit.
I agree that is better.
For the last
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
By the way, when I was revising the text two things occurred to me that
have probably been discussed to death elsewhere but let me mention them
anyway:
1. I found it confusing that `git bisect terms` lists its arguments in
the order `term-new
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
[...]
+Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and the
+command will print out a description of the first bad commit, and also
+create a
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
[...]
+Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and the
+command will print out a description of the first bad commit, and also
+create a reference called `refs/bisect/bad` that points at that
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
* Remove the Look for a fix instead of a regression in the code
example, as (1) it was in the git bisect run section, but it
doesn't use that command, and (2) I think this usage is adequately
explained in the Alternate terms section.
[...]
Thoroughly revise the git bisect manpage, including:
* Beef up the Description section.
* Integrate the good/bad alternate terms into more of the text.
* Merge the sections Alternative terms: bisect new and bisect old
and Alternative terms: use your own terms into a single Alternate
terms
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Matthieu Moy
matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote:
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
[...]
+Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and the
11 matches
Mail list logo
