Oleg Taranenko <olegtarane...@gmail.com> writes: > First, assuming the common ancestor is GOOD based on the fact that > some descendant given as GOOD is pretty bad idea.
What you claim is fundamentally incompatible with the way "bisect" works as a O(log(n)) operation. It is likely that your definition of Good for the purpose of your bug-hunting needs to be rethought if you want to take advantage of "bisect". > I have another request to get git bisect more user-friendly, regarding > rolling back last step or steps, if accidentally 'git bisect bad' or > 'good' was wrong entered, but I think it worth for another thread. Are you aware that you can check $GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG and replay it to recreate any previous state of the bisection? That would probably help. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
