Hi Nick,

I would like to thank you, since your message made me curious about git,
and I started using it. After reading a little bit, I was able to install
it, clone the org repository and revert the commit we were talking about
(that feels good). I can now use Org normally again. I just hope it's not a
very bad thing to do.

FC


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Nick Dokos <ndokos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fletcher Charest <fletcher.charest@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Nick, you say you could not reproduce the bug using version
> > 8.2.5h-667-g971dc4, but you did with version 8.2.5h-888-g798bb8d. Just
> > out of curiosity: does the '888' in '8.2.5h-888-g798bb8d' is a number
> > that is incremented chronologically? If this is correct (I'm not
> > familiar with this at all), FWIW, the bug was not caused only by the
> > patch '8.2.5h-888-g798bb8d', since I observed it also with version
> > 8.2.5h-94-g91175a.
> >
>
> 888 is the number of commits since the commit that was tagged
> '8.2.5h'. Unfortunately, that number can be misleading: in the
> face of merges, there may be multiple paths that lead from some commit
> back to the tagged commit (run `gitk master' if you want to see the
> multiple
> paths), so the "number of commits since the tag" is ambiguous. It is
> only unambiguous if the history is strictly linear.
>
> If you do `git log --oneline -100' on master, you'll see that there is a
> merge commit d25846b that looks like this:
>
> ,----
> | $ git show d25846b
> | commit d25846b2340e32dea93fc89ea432f74a7f64d950
> | Merge: f261833 91175a3
> | Author: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
> | Date:   Sat Mar 29 15:02:10 2014 +0100
> |
> |     Merge branch 'maint'
> `----
>
> The merge commit has two parents: f261833 and our old friend 91175a3.
>
> Try git describe on this commit:
>
>    git describe d25846b
>
> It's only one commit ahead of 91175a3 but I get
>
>    release_8.2.5h-873-gd25846b
>
> so it's 873 commits ahead of 8.2.5h, not 95! But that's because `git
> describe' takes a different, much longer, path back to the tagged
> commit: it follows the first parent of the merge commit.
>
> So I'm pretty sure that the patch that the bisection fingered is
> indeed the culprit.
>
> I believe this is correct but if not, Achim will correct me:-)
>
> --
> Nick
>
>
>