Hi, On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:41:19AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > No it is not irrelevant. with the bad bibisect commit, say > c49af8fc6406f9e7e8e0b1dcebee6df87bdeb9aa > you immediately have the answer you seek: > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/gitweb?p=bibisect-macosx-64-5.0.git;a=commit;h=c49af8fc6406f9e7e8e0b1dcebee6df87bdeb9aa
I guess Stephans point is that if somebody just throws a "source sha:6586da0631ddcfd704538b0e1cf96d2ea0be7cd9" line about there is no way of knowing what that means without doing research into what bibisect repo it was from and how the bibisect log looks like. Your "lets write all commit hashes in the bibisect commit" improvement is nice for devs bisecting themselves and then continuing to fix the stuff. But once there is a handoff between a bibisecter and a bug fixer, a source commit range in the form "<source-hash-of-last-known-good>..<source-hash-of-first-known-bad" is the most universal, short and unambigous format to communitcate that information. Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
