Re: git blame crashes with internal error

["Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>]

On 2007.10.14 18:32:44 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
> 
> > On 2007.10.14 16:51:46 +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> > > Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
> > >> I tried all git releases from 1.5.3 to 1.5.3.4 as well as the current
> > >> master and all of them crashed. A small shell script to reproduce the
> > >> problem is attached.
> > >
> > > Manual bisect? Ugh. This *is* the century of the competent developer
> > > tools, you know... ;-)
> > 
> > Then, how do I search for a good version with git bisect if I only have
> > the one data-point "master is bad"?
> 
> AFAIK Junio introduced the option to start with just a bad commit, and no 
> known "good" one.
> 
> Yep, just found it.  Since v1.5.2-rc0~77^2(git-bisect: allow bisecting 
> with only one bad commit.) it is supported.
> 
> >From the commit message:
> 
>     This allows you to say:
> 
>         git bisect start
>         git bisect bad $bad
>         git bisect next

OK, using that approach, I bisected it, and even found a "guilty"
commit, although it is pretty much useless:

1cfe77333f274c9ba9879c2eb61057a790eb050f is first bad commit
commit 1cfe77333f274c9ba9879c2eb61057a790eb050f
Author: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date:   Tue Jan 30 01:11:08 2007 -0800

    git-blame: no rev means start from the working tree file.

    Warning: this changes the semantics.

    This makes "git blame" without any positive rev to start digging
    from the working tree copy, which is made into a fake commit
    whose sole parent is the HEAD.

    It also adds --contents <file> option to pretend as if the
    working tree copy has the contents of the named file.  You can
    use '-' to make the command read from the standard input.

    If you want the command to start annotating from the HEAD
    commit, you need to explicitly give HEAD parameter.

    Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

> I don't know if it is in the documentation (I rarely read it), so if it is 
> missing, it would be nice if you could add the description there.

Nothing in there yet AFAICT. Will try to get a patch done tomorrow.

thanks,
Björn