Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:39 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> > From f673cea53e046774847be918f4023430e56bf6cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:09:15 +0200 >> > Subject: [PATCH] bisect: don't use invalid oid as rev when starting >> > ... >> > diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> > index 93e855271b9..d11d4c9bbb5 100644 >> > --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> > +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> >> Unfortunately this does not apply to the broken commit or 'master' >> or anywhere else, it seems (no such blob as 93e855271b9 found at the >> path). >> >> It is better to make it applicable at least to 'master'. Making it >> also apply to 'maint' is optional, I would say, as the bug it fixes >> is not so critical. > > Sorry, I don't know what happened. It seemed to me that my branch was > based on master, but maybe I did something wrong. Oh, you didn't do anything wrong. What was queued was your patch which applied cleanly to maint, master and the old version that brought the breakage into the codebase. I think I queued it on maint-2.25 or something sufficiently old, but as I said, a patch that applies to 'master' would be good enough. What I had trouble applying to see how it improves upon yours was the one from Dscho. Thanks.
