| 1 |
Jason Zaman posted on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:38:01 +0800 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Tho I can definitely think of a non-traditional use for bisect. |
| 4 |
>> [When a system hasn't been updated in over a year, bisect the update.] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I like the idea, but its probably easier to just git checkout $(git |
| 7 |
> rev-list -n 1 --before="2015-12-01 12:00" master) and then you just |
| 8 |
> change the date a month at a time or something |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You're correct, and I did think about that, but... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The nice thing with bisect at least in something like the kernel where |
| 13 |
most of the direct main-tree changes are merges, is that it'll stay at |
| 14 |
the higher merge level as long as possible, drilling down to individual |
| 15 |
commits only after bisects to an individual merge. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Again, however, I'm not entirely sure how that translates to gentoo's |
| 18 |
rebase-and-fast-forward recommendation, with fewer merges. But at the |
| 19 |
3-4 month level, if it avoids landing in the middle of a kde or gnome |
| 20 |
update, that'd be very useful. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It could well be that with gentoo's merges-discouraged workflow, the |
| 23 |
effect would be the same either way, in which case, you're correct, your |
| 24 |
suggestion would be easier. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But it's still a creative use of bisect I hadn't thought of before, even |
| 27 |
if bisect isn't the most efficient method to that end. Which means I know |
| 28 |
a bit more about bisect than I did. =:^) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives