From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs seems awfully unstable on OS X lately Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:46:22 +0900 Message-ID: <87y5kbpff5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20120914.213730.34304030923318002.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <20120914.214640.2246127335507862716.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <20120914.231549.577792233582292458.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <20120914.233615.1211925805839826307.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <87fw6ki51g.fsf@wanadoo.es> <874nmzr5i5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83d31ntxnt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347716796 26925 80.91.229.3 (15 Sep 2012 13:46:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, hanche@math.ntnu.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 15 15:46:39 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TCshj-0006Sl-9k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:46:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54269 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCshf-000083-G1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:46:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCshc-00007x-VU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:46:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCshc-00037W-6A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:46:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:60058) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCsha-00036C-KW; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:46:30 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E390197088D; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:46:22 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A81FE1A3591; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:46:22 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83d31ntxnt.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta32) "habanero" b0d40183ac79 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153322 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Why is the second command necessary? Are you assuming that the bug > was introduced after 109470? No. I'm simply allowing for the possibility that it was. >=20 > My line of thought was: it's quite easy to establish whether the bug > is present in 109471, with 109470 reverse cherry-picked. If it is > present, bisect the trunk where 109470 is removed; How do you propose doing that? It's not possible to remove a revision from a branch. You either do a rebase (what I proposed), or you have to reapply the reverse cherrypick on each revision tested in the bisection (as =C3=93scar proposed) because the reverse cherrypick is always the *tip*, it cannot be applied "in place".