From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bisect: fix calculation of the number of suspicious revisions Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:23:57 -0700 Message-ID: <7vodmmz3wy.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070317141209.GA7838@cepheus> <20070317195840.GA20735@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> <20070321210454.GA2844@lala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 21 22:24:05 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HU8Ht-0008Kt-0V for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:24:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965069AbXCUVYA convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:24:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965085AbXCUVYA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:24:00 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.241.43]:35527 "EHLO fed1rmmtao103.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965069AbXCUVX7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:23:59 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070321212359.GLQP18070.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:23:59 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id dZPy1W00m1kojtg0000000; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:23:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070321210454.GA2844@lala> (Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= =?utf-8?Q?'s?= message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:04:54 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig writes: > Up to now the number printed was calculated assuming that the > current revision to test is bad. Given that it's not possible > that this always matches the number of suspicious revs if the > current one is good, the maximum of both is taken now. > > Moreover I think the number printed was always one to high, > this is fixed, too. I know you mean well, but is it really worth an extra rev-list for this off-by-one, I wonder?