Hi Bjoern, On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:36:23AM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen <bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:34:13AM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote: > > My new builds now have a commit message like "2014-10-15: > > source-hash-defa080e585fb351bc4049b2f280d2e7e5256f6e" in the dbgutil > > repo, hope that keeps everyone happy. :-) > > Thats lovely, but still doesnt show up in "git bisect log", doesnt it?
It does, e.g.: $ git bisect log # bad: [29d24957395afa48f63fa078c1a3786cb471232e] 2014-10-16: source-hash-3e2bd1e4022e25b77bcc8eba5e02c1adc57008a1 ... # bad: [671ac8dc45cb809092bcabfe76006eb0948ee081] 2014-10-15: source-hash-defa080e585fb351bc4049b2f280d2e7e5256f6e git bisect bad 671ac8dc45cb809092bcabfe76006eb0948ee081 # first bad commit: [671ac8dc45cb809092bcabfe76006eb0948ee081] 2014-10-15: source-hash-defa080e585fb351bc4049b2f280d2e7e5256f6e > FWIW, tagging existing commits doesnt really touch/change them, so no rebase > or > other complex tweaking needed. Otherwise we might need some script that > extracts that from the repo, so we have useful infomation in the stuff that > people paste on bugzilla. OTOG that might be somewhat useful in general, as it > might even show the commits in the bibisect range. Yes, such a script would be useful -- maybe file an EasyHack to create one? Regards, Miklos
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
