Subject: Re: git-bisect is magical

From: walt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:19:33 -0800

Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
> but the fact is, whenever you leave off the version specifier, it will 
> just assume that "current HEAD" is it...

I'm still very much struggling with nomenclature, and trying to
deduce what is a synonym for what, and which words cannot be used
synonymously.

Yesterday (while reading the bisect HOWTO) I did a git-revert on the
'bad' commit, which indeed fixed my bug.  But this caused a problem
this morning when I did my daily 'cg-update' for the kernel.

I got a merge conflict (of course) because of yesterday's git-revert.

My question (I think) is:  exactly what did I change when I did the
git-revert?  I notice in retrospect that (in refs/heads) master is
no longer identical to origin.  I think (but I'm not certain) that
the two used to be the same.  (For example, in my 'git' repository
the 'master' and 'origin' files are identical.)

Did the git-revert change my local kernel repository permanently?
Did the merge-conflict prevent today's cg-update from updating my
local repository with your commits from the last 24 hours?  Or is
the merge conflict only with my currently checked-out-and-modified
copy of the repository?

Is it clear to you why I'm confused? :o)  Most of my muddle is
because I don't know the definitions of some important words, I
suspect.

Thanks!