Re: [PATCH] bisect: don't use invalid oid as rev when starting
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Sep 25, 2020, 07:14 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2009250914140.5061@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2009250910200.5061@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 30 quoted lines
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> > >
> > >>> Hopefully the V2 I just sent will be better anyway.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW I was working off of Miriam's `git-bisect-work-part2-v8` branch at
> > >> https://gitlab.com/mirucam/git.git.
> > >>
> > >> I'm happy with Christian's v2 (with or without the indentation fixes I
> > >> suggested).
> > >
> > > Thanks, both of you. The updated one does look good.
> >
> > Oops, do you mean s/path restriction/pathspec/ fix? v2 looks OK nesting-wise
> > and I think your indentex-fix suggestion was for the previous one.
>
> I was referring to the indentation of the -/+ lines in the commit message.
> Your current `SQUASH???` does not include the line-shortening, but that's
> okay. I slightly prefer the version where single conditional statements
> lose the curly brackets, but that's just nit-picking.
>
> A slightly bigger question is whether `git_oid_committish()` would be okay
> enough, or whether we do need `get_oidf(&oid, "%s^{commit}", arg)` (as
> your `SQUASH???` does).
>
> I'm not quite sure: aren't those two calls idempotent, with the latter
> going through some unnecessary string processing dances?Whoops. You explained that elsewhere in the thread. My bad. Ignore me.
Ciao, Dscho