Re: git-bisect is magical
- From
- walt <wa1ter@myrealbox.com>
- Date
- Jan 10, 2006, 19:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <dq11c6$g15$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601091516460.5588@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds wrote: [...]
> but the fact is, whenever you leave off the version specifier, it will > just assume that "current HEAD" is it...
I'm still very much struggling with nomenclature, and trying to deduce what is a synonym for what, and which words cannot be used synonymously.
Yesterday (while reading the bisect HOWTO) I did a git-revert on the 'bad' commit, which indeed fixed my bug. But this caused a problem this morning when I did my daily 'cg-update' for the kernel.
I got a merge conflict (of course) because of yesterday's git-revert.
My question (I think) is: exactly what did I change when I did the git-revert? I notice in retrospect that (in refs/heads) master is no longer identical to origin. I think (but I'm not certain) that the two used to be the same. (For example, in my 'git' repository the 'master' and 'origin' files are identical.)
Did the git-revert change my local kernel repository permanently? Did the merge-conflict prevent today's cg-update from updating my local repository with your commits from the last 24 hours? Or is the merge conflict only with my currently checked-out-and-modified copy of the repository?
Is it clear to you why I'm confused? :o) Most of my muddle is because I don't know the definitions of some important words, I suspect.
Thanks!