From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com>, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: Article about "git bisect run" on LWN
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:52:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090206015215.GA6261@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090206014655.GA26807@elte.hu>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> The idea would be to insert 30% redunancy into my bisections automatically
> - so that i could trust _all_ bisections more - not just the ones i
> suspect to be non-deterministic. Hence the suggestion to enable lower
> levels of redundancy like 30%. (but even 10% or 20% might be enough to
> weed out the most obvious cases)
the other advantage of redundancy that i forgot to mention:
- Sometimes the non-determinism is inserted by a _human_. It happened not
once that i accidentally mis-judged a testpoint, and the bisection ran
afoul. Only 4-5 steps later do i suspect that something is wrong: that i
get an unlikely series of good,good,good,good,good or bad,bad,bad,bad,bad
testpoint qualities.
So for manual bisection, redundancy can be a big time-saver. If i mess up a
bisection point then say 50% redundancy can still point out my stupidity
with a high likelyhood.
In fact if Git sees an unlikely series of same-quality bisection points, it
could artificially insert a test to around the last-different test point, to
test the theory of a messed up bisection.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-06 1:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-05 6:47 Article about "git bisect run" on LWN Christian Couder
2009-02-05 13:34 ` Bill Lear
2009-02-05 14:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-06 2:42 ` david
2009-02-06 1:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-06 1:52 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-02-06 5:23 ` Christian Couder
2009-02-07 4:41 ` Christian Couder
2009-02-07 12:55 ` David Symonds
2009-02-07 18:09 ` Christian Couder
2009-02-07 18:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-09 12:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 13:15 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-09 21:03 ` David Symonds
2009-02-10 6:12 ` Christian Couder
2009-02-05 16:23 ` Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-05 20:54 ` Christian Couder
2009-02-06 2:49 ` david
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090206015215.GA6261@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=ae@op5.se \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=david@lang.hm \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=jon.seymour@gmail.com \
--cc=rael@zopyra.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.