From: René Scharfe Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:59:15 GMT Subject: Re: fatal: Could not get current working directory: Permission denied | affected 2.10,2.11,2.12, but not 1.9.5 | Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Am 14.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb Zenobiusz Kunegunda: > Od: "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de> Do: "Zenobiusz Kunegunda" > <zenobiusz.kunegunda@interia.pl>; Wysłane: 22:31 Poniedziałek > 2017-03-13 Temat: Re: fatal: Could not get current working directory: > Permission denied | affected 2.10,2.11,2.12, but not 1.9.5 | > >> >>> Am 13.03.2017 um 14:23 schrieb Zenobiusz Kunegunda: Bisecting: 0 >>> revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps) >>> [a26bc613a64ac2c7ee69a50675e61b004a26382d] pretty.c: make >>> git_pretty_formats_config return -1 on git_config_string failure >>> >>> This is what I found with git bisect >> >> Strange, I don't think git_pretty_formats_config() is even called >> by git status. >> >> René >> >> > > > a26bc613a64ac2c7ee69a50675e61b004a26382d - is actually working > revision > > The question is - is git history linear enough for git bisect to > produce any useful result? Gitk produces rather complicated diagram. > Especially for year 2014. I'm not sure about reliability of this > method. Or maybe it should be used in a specific way I'm not aware > of. If you have any advices how to use it in this specific case, > please let me know. Ah, right, I didn't pay enough attention, sorry. Step 0 is the last one, but you need to rate it as good or bad before reset presents the result. History is not really linear in git's own repository. But if you didn't reset bisect's status you may still be able to finish it by running "git bisect good a26bc613" now. (And if that doesn't work then at least you now have a much quicker way to check using the long directory name..) René