On Monday 09 November 2009 10:11:07 you wrote: > 17bf093fa0fb041c2b9a6fec71b90a8630fba1ff is not a tree hash, it's a commit > hash.
I know, sorry for the confusion. Does git even have a real tree hash comparable to an svn revision? I never ran across one so far and I just grepped through the man pages but there doesn't seem to be any command to really get one either. > And 7bf093fa0fb041c2b9a6fec71b90a8630fba1ff is not a valid object: I was in a hurry but I really should've re-read that mail before sending it, sorry. What I meant was the regression must have crept in between those two commits: 17bf093fa0fb041c2b9a6fec71b90a8630fba1ff 5b4b6b2be7b901ef9a29c37431998034730fa3d3 But I guess that's not very helpful because it's based on the public repository. Just for future reference: What's the best way to narrow the search range down for you guys (apart from a proper bisect)? Thanks. So long, matthias _______________________________________________ Qt4-preview-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt4-preview-feedback
