Junio C Hamano writes:
A model dialogue may go like this. $ git bisect start -- bin/ info: bisect waiting for good and bad commits. $ git bisect good master info: bisect waiting for a bad commit, one good commit known. $ git bisect good maint info: bisect waiting for a bad commit, two good commits known. $ git bisect bad next Bisecting: ... Then the exchange for the lazy short-hand form of "bisect start" would fall out quite naturally. $ git bisect start d93ff48803f0 -- v6.3 info: bisect waiting for a good commit, one bad commit known. For a bonus point, we may want to also say something on these "info:" lines that we were given a pathspec. It would also be a good idea to add a new subcommand "git bisect status" to recompute the state (i.e. what it is waiting for and what it already knows) when the user forgets, which can happen quite often.
Sounds good.
With such a bonus feature, the exchange might go like this: $ git bisect start seen info: bisect waiting for a good commit, a bad commit known. $ git reset --hard maint ;# choose an older point, hoping it is good. $ make test ... pages of output scrolls the "info:" out of window ... $ git bisect status info: bisect waiting for a good commit, a bad commit known. $ git bisect bad maint info: bisect waiting for a good commit, a bad commit known. $ git reset --hard v1.0 ;# an even older point, hoping it is good. $ make test ... again pages of output ... $ git bisect good v1.0 Bisecting ... Hmm?
I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else has any other feedback, and then I'll send a patch to that effect.
Thanks!
