Sam Vilain wrote: > > Oh, yes. And another thing: 'git bisect run' / 'git bisect skip' > doesn't do a very good job of skipping around broken commits (ie when > the script returns 126). It just seems to move to the next one; it > would be much better IMHO to first try the commit 1/3rd of the way into > the range, then if that fails, the commit 2/3rd of the way through it, etc. > I posted about that last year: http://marc.info/?l=git&i=48F3DCEB.1060803@xxxxxxxxx At the time, git bisect was still done in the shell and it was deemed too difficult. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html