From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFF8201C8 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753514AbdKKMBp (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:01:45 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:55889 "EHLO mail-io0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752877AbdKKMBo (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:01:44 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p186so16139485ioe.12 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:01:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EiyTAF67k5M2ObcWi7m9RYX3TH2Ir1QlxV2PbJpV+eM=; b=eCzSVyPvkfvez/iwY8LoEUKkq5cDFFh78aYk/QxSQ9vWLQ1+H6Ay/sb1iIBHcjiUGi k/HluvkTHXLRkWpD4JdL8BFhDeqtfRVfQK7aI1tu9VraS/wihvmsK70JTAkBrB/ZsOjq E764baOS5c1DWCVqFIy8KgPz0OfubB+2g8rJqz7wCxlXo/J5EsUC0DuCXp6lJmrggz/8 wzBXKqaXdnuAQRxZ7m2q7eGtBdTL7j9GiWzUu5VG6fodRBexKBLNRQIF1IhI1YXPIvbI 3hqgk4HCdUbOilnPIPF3TXQCk62yZzmNEO6bdYdP0kbHsY72xmuW87gDkVHcLBD2TRPB 9KxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EiyTAF67k5M2ObcWi7m9RYX3TH2Ir1QlxV2PbJpV+eM=; b=KjJiHnWb8BcfX6067U9ZsvXeqVgmsktWXsvs5hbt9YrkEnlRti9cW6hFrSjf5ARsaS 3xJs23HRUoU58L6h0TW1uT0a5fc5HMb59RZywsyFUNNG1FUWIavMOoR9z16mpp2eF0ga dTLNXeQM0iBF1n8sx2Us7BtD4IgXXD/1qgbj1wxcz2xMGFnt6FHlmWn2Sqnu2d80zEZ+ nsvl/hdG/z8jQQdqvtW2LpxyuBE7gUFkZVT/MYngl/aielzf8vxzBR3USYDNHwDiSx/T CGgOzHm/1d/FFmK2Qx78NvObV26OijnpfIdAC0g0acutET8e1qcBTqizhgLSxxp4ym0u TC5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6NwZUxhk0tgPE3U+PZtJwIOLYBOjwwy7qg8WLYud3Z1V5C7PWM Q7T2miBARLHAHxiGgQY33MTqH6M7dhgnIXZWgDI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbOvJRtCqe3DH+ddhPCypXWpLPXUTqANtmWtvfvq+fQDgMEaiATBu45ge4SmWh7t7OsdgRDoD9IOmBcS727ghc= X-Received: by 10.107.47.17 with SMTP id j17mr3563984ioo.96.1510401703979; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:01:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.28.137 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:01:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Christian Couder Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 13:01:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: "git bisect" takes exactly one bad commit and one or more good? To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: Git Mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > more on "git bisect" ... the man page seems to make it clear that > bisection takes *precisely* one "bad" commit, and one *or more* good > commits, is that correct? Yeah, that's true. > seems that way, given the ellipses in the > commands below: > > git bisect start [--term-{old,good}= --term-{new,bad}=] > [--no-checkout] [ [...]] [--] [...] > git bisect (bad|new|) [] > git bisect (good|old|) [...] Yeah indeed. > however, other parts of the man page seem less clear. just below > that, a description that bisection takes "a" good commit: > > "You use it by first telling it a "bad" commit that is known to > contain the bug, and a "good" commit that is known to be before the > bug was introduced." Yeah, 'and at least a "good" commit' would be better. > and a bit lower, we read "at least one bad ...", which some people > might interpret as one or more *bad* commits: > > "Once you have specified at least one bad and one good commit, git > bisect selects a commit in the middle of that range of history, checks > it out, and outputs something similar to the following:" Yeah, 'Once you have specified one bad and at least one good commit' would be better. > if the rules are exactly one bad commit and one or more good, i'll > submit a patch to reword at least the above, and possibly more if > necessary. Sure, thanks, Christian.