Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Theodore Ts'o writes: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 03:21:57PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: >> >> Yeah I agree that it might be something interesting for the user to do. >> But in this case the sequence in which you give the good and the bad >> commits is not important. >> Only the

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-12 Thread Stephan Beyer
Hi, On 11/11/2017 03:38 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Robert P. J. Day >> wrote: >>> >>> the man page for "git bisect" makes no mention of "git bisect next", >>> but the script

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-12 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 03:21:57PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > > Yeah I agree that it might be something interesting for the user to do. > But in this case the sequence in which you give the good and the bad > commits is not important. > Only the last bad commit and the set of good commits

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-12 Thread Christian Couder
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Theodore Ts'o writes: > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:38:23PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for saving me time to explain why 'next' is still a very >>> important command but the end users do

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
"Robert P. J. Day" writes: >> This reminds me; is there a way to suppress it because I'm about to >> give a large set of good and bit commits (perhaps because I'm > >> replaying part of a git biset log, minus one or two lines that

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-12 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:38:23PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Thanks for saving me time to explain why 'next' is still a very > > important command but the end users do not actually need to be > > strongly aware of it, because most commands

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-11 Thread Junio C Hamano
Theodore Ts'o writes: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:38:23PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Thanks for saving me time to explain why 'next' is still a very >> important command but the end users do not actually need to be >> strongly aware of it, because most commands

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-11 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:38:23PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Thanks for saving me time to explain why 'next' is still a very > important command but the end users do not actually need to be > strongly aware of it, because most commands automatically invokes it > as their final step due to

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-11 Thread Junio C Hamano
Christian Couder writes: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Robert P. J. Day > wrote: >> >> the man page for "git bisect" makes no mention of "git bisect next", >> but the script git-bisect.sh does: > > Yeah the following patch was related:

Re: should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-11 Thread Christian Couder
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > the man page for "git bisect" makes no mention of "git bisect next", > but the script git-bisect.sh does: Yeah the following patch was related:

should "git bisect" support "git bisect next?"

2017-11-11 Thread Robert P. J. Day
the man page for "git bisect" makes no mention of "git bisect next", but the script git-bisect.sh does: #!/bin/sh USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|new|old|terms|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run]' LONG_USAGE='git bisect help print