On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> "You use it by first telling it a "bad" commit that is known to
> >> contain the bug, and a "good" commit that is known to be before the
> >> bug was introduced."
> >
> > Yeah, 'and at least a "good" commit' would be better.
>
> Make it "at least one" instead, perhaps?
>
> I somehow thought that you technically could force bisection with 0
> good commit, even though no sane person would do so...
i do see the following snippet in bisect_next_check():
bisect_next_check() {
... snip ...
case "$missing_good,$missing_bad,$1" in
,,*)
: have both $TERM_GOOD and $TERM_BAD - ok
;;
*,)
# do not have both but not asked to fail - just report.
false
;;
t,,"$TERM_GOOD")
# have bad (or new) but not good (or old). we could bisect although
# this is less optimum.
eval_gettextln "Warning: bisecting only with a \$TERM_BAD commit." >&2
... snip ...
so i guess it's possible.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
