Volker Weißmann <volker.weissmann@xxxxxx> writes: > If you use `git bisect` and `git bisect skip`, you might get an output > like this: > > There are only 'skip'ped commits left to test. > The first bad commit could be any of: > 01f793267a9af328f0f1af2cdb88301a08f007b2 > a87784e29411e8b08059fdc79629e64de3002c99 > af0df663440796a0580644493c15290405e60ecd > 4f34b8cd48e2a814263efb319fe5dbab91215aed > f3d91e38a45f0a2ec5affb884d536c9c4e5bb290 > 13526e1b0e1b11a2e30e44ccf35fbf92ffb61372 > abee97622db5301d593265ff6e2009777b09221e > b63700f09a422f01d954967b84c5e662881352eb > We cannot bisect more! > > While the output is correct, I don't like the fact that the commits are > not in chronological order. Is there a reason for this? Chronological > order makes sense and would make it easier to find the first known bad > and the last known good commit. Thanks for a report. I looked at an "scripted" version in the ancient past and it seems to have computed by iterating over git rev-list bisect/bad --not $good_revs which would have given these intermediate ones roughly in the reverse chronological order. It could be that the behaviour regressed when the scripted version was rewritten in C, but I dunno. Christian (as an "area" expert for bisect), do you have any comments? Thanks.
