Re: [PATCH v3] rev-list: refuse --first-parent combined with --bisect

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Mar 8, 2015, 21:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cROEyWvJDW7uf1D7owdL-FwLHMtEBwWSNwS1M=vMcozLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1425827005-9602-1-git-send-email-me@ikke.info>

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Kevin Daudt <me@ikke.info> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> rev-list --bisect is used by git bisect, but never together with
> --first-parent. Because rev-list --bisect together with --first-parent
> is not handled currently, and even leads to segfaults, refuse to use
> both options together.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Daudt <me@ikke.info>
> Suggested-by: Junio C. Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

It's customary for your sign-off to be last.

Show 12 quoted lines

> ---
> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> index 4ed8587..05c3f6d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> @@ -123,7 +123,8 @@ parents) and `--max-parents=-1` (negative numbers denote no upper limit).
>         because merges into a topic branch tend to be only about
>         adjusting to updated upstream from time to time, and
>         this option allows you to ignore the individual commits
> -       brought in to your history by such a merge.
> +       brought in to your history by such a merge. Cannot be
> +       combined with --bisect.

A couple questions:

Should the documentation for ---bisect be updated to mention this restriction also?

Should this change be protected by a "ifndef::git-rev-list[]" as are all other mentions of "bisect" in rev-list-options.txt?

>  --not::
>         Reverses the meaning of the '{caret}' prefix (or lack thereof)