On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Alan Stern writes:
>
> >> > No. Here's a simple example:
> >> >
> >> > Y
> >> >/
> >> > /
> >> > X--B
> >> >
> >> > In this diagram, X = B^. But B isn't reachable from either X or Y,
> >> > whereas it is r
Alan Stern writes:
>> > No. Here's a simple example:
>> >
>> > Y
>> >/
>> > /
>> > X--B
>> >
>> > In this diagram, X = B^. But B isn't reachable from either X or Y,
>> > whereas it is reachable from one of X's children (namely Y).
> ...
> Thus, if B i
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Alan Stern writes:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Stern wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tracking down regressions. Bisection isn't perfect. Suppose a
> >> > bisection run ends up saying that B is the first bad commit. It's easy
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Alan Stern writes:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Stern wrote:
>>>
>>> > Tracking down regressions. Bisection isn't perfect. Suppose a
>>> > bisection run ends up saying that B is the first bad commit. It's easy
>>> > enough to build B a
Alan Stern writes:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> Alan Stern wrote:
>>
>> > Tracking down regressions. Bisection isn't perfect. Suppose a
>> > bisection run ends up saying that B is the first bad commit. It's easy
>> > enough to build B and test it, to verify that it reall
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > Tracking down regressions. Bisection isn't perfect. Suppose a
> > bisection run ends up saying that B is the first bad commit. It's easy
> > enough to build B and test it, to verify that it really is bad.
> >
> > But to be s
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>>> --ancestry-path is my current favorite tool for walking-forward needs.
>>
>> Curious. I often want to answer this question:
> [...]
>> And my experiments with --ancestry-path has been less than ideal.
>
> Thanks fo
Alan Stern wrote:
> Tracking down regressions. Bisection isn't perfect. Suppose a
> bisection run ends up saying that B is the first bad commit. It's easy
> enough to build B and test it, to verify that it really is bad.
>
> But to be sure that B introduced the fault, it would help to find the
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > The "git rev-list A ^B" command lists all the commits that are
> > reachable from A but not from B. Is there a comparable command for the
> > converse relation, that is, a command to list all the commits that A is
> >
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> - Were there follow-up fixes and enhancements on the topic
>>after the topic was merged to 'master' (this is harder)?
>
> There's only one line coming out of the-merge^2 in the ancestry-path
> graph, so there were no such follow-up fix
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> --ancestry-path is my current favorite tool for walking-forward needs.
>
> Curious. I often want to answer this question:
[...]
> And my experiments with --ancestry-path has been less than ideal.
Thanks for an example. I've found it works okay
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> --ancestry-path is my current favorite tool for walking-forward needs.
Curious. I often want to answer this question:
Commit 982ac87 was reported to be faulty. What topic was it on
and at which point was it merged to 'master'?
- What is the 'bottom' of
Hi,
Alan Stern wrote:
> The "git rev-list A ^B" command lists all the commits that are
> reachable from A but not from B. Is there a comparable command for the
> converse relation, that is, a command to list all the commits that A is
> reachable from but B isn't?
>
> And if there is such a comma
The "git rev-list A ^B" command lists all the commits that are
reachable from A but not from B. Is there a comparable command for the
converse relation, that is, a command to list all the commits that A is
reachable from but B isn't?
And if there is such a command, can the output be limited to ju
14 matches
Mail list logo
