On Wednesday 03 August 2011 01:16:54 Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Having said that, other than these minor nits, I think this round is > almost ready. I didn't check how it behaves upon "bisect reset", > though. It shouldn't touch the index, HEAD nor the working tree (it > probably is just the matter of "update-ref -d BISECT_HEAD" and nothing > else, but I haven't thought things through thoroughly). > > Further polishing we may want to do while it is still in pu/next I can > think of off the top of my head are: > > - In this mode, I can bisect the history even inside a bare repository, > as the whole point of --no-checkout is that the mode does not require a > working tree. I however suspect "git bisect" requires working tree. Is > this something we want to fix? > > - Further, perhaps should we default to this mode inside a bare > repository? I agree that it would be nice if it worked in a bare repo. I did not look at that yet. > Christian, do you think of anything else? No, I agree that it looks almost ready. The few improvements I would like are: - squashing the last patch into the previous ones, - using a bisect_mode() function when needed. > Also do you see flaws in our > reasoning that updating only BISECT_HEAD and doing nothing else is a good > way to do this? No, I agree that --no-checkout is a good idea and that using only BISECT_HEAD is good way to do this. 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