On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:27:06PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> 04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on >> wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended >> up with a 2.6.34 top level >> Makefile >> 04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 >> 04:23 < mcgrof> eh >> 04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now >> 04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient >> 04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/ >> 04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK >> >> I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need >> to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags >> from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that >> you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I >> wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still? > > wireless-testing is a nasty mess when it comes to bisection. > I am considering a one-time rebase of wireless-testing after the > next -rc1, now that the current process is working reasonably well. > wireless-testing will continue to have a messy history, but it should > be a bit less nasty after a rebase. > > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 > instead? Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
