Re: [PATCH] Documentation: reworded the "Description" section of git-bisect.txt.
- From
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
- Date
- Mar 19, 2009, 10:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <49C21AA2.204@drmicha.warpmail.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1237446012-4533-1-git-send-email-dmellor@whistlingcat.com>
David J. Mellor venit, vidit, dixit 19.03.2009 08:00:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Added fixes missing from 2364259. > > Signed-off-by: David J. Mellor <dmellor@whistlingcat.com> > --- > Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 17 +++++++++-------- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt > index 51d06c1..1a4a527 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt > @@ -114,21 +114,22 @@ $ git bisect view --stat > Bisect log and bisect replay > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -The good/bad input is logged, and: > +After having marked revisions as good or bad, then: > > ------------ > $ git bisect log > ------------ > > -shows what you have done so far. You can truncate its output somewhere > -and save it in a file, and run: > +shows what you have done so far. If you discover that you made a mistake > +in specifying the status of a revision, you can save the output of this > +command to a file, edit it to remove the incorrect entries, and then issue > +the following commands to return to a corrected state: >
I guess his tells me that I should not have taken the following (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/113568) literally:
David J. Mellor venit, vidit, dixit 18.03.2009 03:54:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On 03/17/2009 02:18 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> One minor reoccurring issue is the following type of construct: >> >> ### >> The good/bad input is logged, and: >> >> ------------ >> $ git bisect log >> ------------ >> >> shows what you have done so far. >> ### >> >> The first line is not a complete sentence. > > I agree. I will send a revised patch (patch 2 in this sequence) that > corrects this.
Again, I think the patch improves the documentation nicely, I just don't think that construct is helpful.
Show 37 quoted lines
> ------------ > +$ git bisect reset > $ git bisect replay that-file > ------------ > > -if you find later that you made a mistake specifying revisions as good/bad. > - > Avoiding testing a commit > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > @@ -141,7 +142,7 @@ want to find a nearby commit and try that instead. > For example: > > ------------ > -$ git bisect good/bad # previous round was good/bad. > +$ git bisect good/bad # previous round was good or bad. > Bisecting: 337 revisions left to test after this > $ git bisect visualize # oops, that is uninteresting. > $ git reset --hard HEAD~3 # try 3 revisions before what > @@ -149,7 +150,7 @@ $ git reset --hard HEAD~3 # try 3 revisions before what > ------------ > > Then compile and test the chosen revision. Afterwards the revision > -is marked as good/bad in the usual manner. > +is marked as good or bad in the usual manner. > > Bisect skip > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > @@ -240,7 +241,7 @@ before compiling, run the real test, and afterwards decide if the > revision (possibly with the needed patch) passed the test and then > rewind the tree to the pristine state. Finally the script should exit > with the status of the real test to let the "git bisect run" command loop > -to determine the eventual outcome of the bisect session. > +determine the eventual outcome of the bisect session. > > EXAMPLES > --------