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

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

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 automatically invokes
> > it as their final step due to the importance of what it does ;-)
>
> 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 are
> suspected of being bogus thanks to flaky reproduction), and so
> there's no point having git bisect figure the "next" commit to try
> until I'm done giving it a list of good/bad commits?

  i'm sure i'll regret asking this, but (assuming "bit" should read
"bad") is this suggesting one can hand bisect more than one bad
commit? i thought we just went through that discussion where there
could be only one bad commit but multiple good commits. clarification?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================