Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Oct 14, 2007, 16:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710141715470.25221@racer.site>
- In-Reply-To
- <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Hi,
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
> The changes since last time are the following:
>
> [PATCH 1/7] rev-list: implement --bisect-all
> [PATCH 2/7] Bisect: fix some white spaces and empty lines breakages.
>
> -> No change.
>
> [PATCH 3/7] Bisect: implement "bisect dunno" to mark untestable revisions.
>
> -> Added dunno stuff in "bisect_replay" that I had forgotten.
> -> Use "bisect_write_good" and "bisect_write_bad" in "bisect_replay"
> while at it.
>
> [PATCH 4/7] Bisect: factorise "bisect_write_*" functions.
> [PATCH 5/7] Bisect: factorise some logging into "bisect_write".
> [PATCH 6/7] Bisect: factorise "bisect_{bad,good,dunno}" into "bisect_state".
>
> -> Some new factorisation and clean up work.
>
> [PATCH 7/7] Bisect: add "bisect dunno" to the documentation.
>
> -> Document "bisect dunno" and fix some short usage descriptions.Thanks for doing this. I think that especially the factorisation adds tremendously to the readibility.
Ciao, Dscho