On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> OK, this sucks. In the course of bisecting this, I've hit two other >> apparently unrelated bugs that prevent my from testing large numbers >> of kernels. Do I have two questions: >> >> 1. Anyone have any ideas from looking at the log? >> >> It looks like most of what's left is network code, so cc netdev. >> >> 2. The !&$#@ bisection is skipping all over the place. I've seen >> 2.6.37 versions and all manner of -rc's out of order. Linus, and >> other people who like pontificating about git bisection: is there any >> way to get the bisection to follow Linus' tree? I think that if >> bisect could be persuaded to consider only changes that are reached by >> following only the *first* merge parent all the way from the bad >> revision to the good revision, then the bisection would build versions >> that were at least good enough for Linus to pull and might have fewer >> bisection-killing bugs. >> >> (This isn't a new idea [1], and git rev-list --bisect --first-parent >> isn't so bad except that it doesn't bisect.) > > Did you forget to put the reference [1] in your email? Was it this one > you were thinking about: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/165433/ No, it was this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5638211/how-do-you-get-git-bisect-to-ignore-merged-branches --Andy > > ? > > Thanks, > Christian. > -- 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