From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AF81F4B4 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2902214AbgJVRFB (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:05:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51718 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2439613AbgJVRFA (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:05:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D73AED5A1; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:04:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Wyf0tpik0sTb0mnMV2VHvC+uyIc=; b=jHPN+U mEwryhWDHs38Xm0xSvL4XJrs2PrlE/NVR/fgnWNpMZb/YGaHlDS6HsmAeSv93Xq1 jp8fC43diwH6tWGuZFlj7L7UbbIexCAYS3VC6plHLGTx+54D3TZN3pYyPY5Y7fof 28jI/bUkoaBmXnX+1wBkekPqdwXZ2KncRmspg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=oABr/QsDTOEmxbb9FwxmogtDJzEpLZvI x2Ib+vhh2MKXaxLpKOYztpXc4ojPPV71+w2Th6oV8Z1Ijr/0GD4hACJUqU4Uw/sX W3EBPcWz0oJ7Ivc/tRlEX6BXDEqUh1lenZf7q8xz4GNmFWClSVVTwEb5ZwPr8VrU N57USvx50TA= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C45ED5A0; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:04:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 424E5ED599; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:04:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Johannes Schindelin , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Sangeeta via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Sangeeta Subject: Re: [PATCH][OUTREACHY] bisect: allow `git bisect` to run from subdirectory References: <2f71d0c4-a5de-c22b-9cbe-a9efcb3cd21d@gmail.com> <46b208d8-3741-d528-c833-aea5770a502c@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:04:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <46b208d8-3741-d528-c833-aea5770a502c@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:52:33 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B5C88BE4-1488-11EB-8DC7-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: >> The relevance is this: _iff_ we want to prevent `git bisect` from >> running >> in a subdirectory under the premise that that subdirectory might need to >> be removed, then why don't we prevent `git rebase` from running in a >> subdirectory when that command is equally likely to remove that >> subdirectory? > > That's a good point, I'd completely missed the analogy with `rebase --exec` I concur. Perhaps we should make rebase a bit more careful.