Sam Halliday writes: > Yeah it's weird. I asked git to stay between 24.4 (bad) and 24.3 (good). I > tried it again with return 155 but again it jumped outside the bound. > > I'll have to read up on cut biscect. It's not behaving as expected. > > A minimal reproducible case would certainly get the thanks of my > ludicrously overheated CPUs right about now! :-P > On 10 Mar 2015 19:30, "Glenn Morris" wrote: > >> Sam Halliday wrote: >> >> > 5f53d2441abf6eafe8e14f29d73e14afe8bec35f is the first bad commit >> >> This commit first appeared in Emacs 23.4. >> >> This makes no sense, since you previously said that the issue (whatever >> it actually is) was not present in 24.1, 24.2, or 24.3. So why are you >> even bisecting over such old revisions? You might want to repeat your >> bisection but only over the range corresponding to the 24.3 and 24.4 >> releases. >> >> (Personally I think this report is suffering from a lack of a minimal >> reproducible example.) >> -- Best regards, Sam