Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> Yes, it is a behavioral change, but is it a bad one? > > .. and perhaps we could introduce --bisect-refs as the "old behavior" of > '--bisect' to git rev-list? > > I kind of suspect that it is unlikely that people are using 'git rev-list > --bisect' while _inside_ a bisection, but then wanting to bisect someting > that is outside the set of commits we're currently actively bisecting. > > But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong too, but I do not think that is plausible that people are doing nested bisection that way. It is probably a useful thing to do, but if somebody has thought of doing so we would have at least seen a request to add a way to tell "git-bisect" what names to use to record the good/bad set of commits under to make their implementation easier. I haven't, and I take it an indication that it is very implausible that such scripts by people exist to be broken by this change. I was more worried about people who reinvented the wheel and are using their own git-bisect.sh derivative. It probably was forked from the version that still used 'git rev-list --bisect", manually feeding good and bad set of commits to it from the command line. But then what they are feeding would be the same as the new --bisect option implicitly gives them anyway, so there won't be a regression either. -- 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