On Wednesday 08 November 2017 at 05:12 pm +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Adam Dinwoodie <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +git bisect reset HEAD > > I guess that using "reset HEAD" could be cheaper than just "reset" and > that's the reason you are using it. Exactly that, yes. I often use `reset HEAD` in my own workflows in the name of speed, and I can't see any disadvantages of doing it here, too. > > +git bisect start > > Are you sure that this "start" is necessary? The doc says that "reset" > followed by "replay that-file" should be enough. It isn't necessary, in that the process works if you skip that command. However, without it, the `git bisect replay` command prints "We are not bisecting" before it does anything else, so having the `bisect start` there explicitly removes that extraneous output. If the script were integrated into git-bisect itself, it would probably make sense to change that behaviour so the warning isn't printed. (It quite possibly makes sense to remove the warning when running `bisect replay` regardless.) But when writing the stand-alone script I wanted things to work without any changes to the core Git code.
