From: walt Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:19:33 GMT Subject: Re: git-bisect is magical Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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!