From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Hicks Subject: Re: bisect help Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20060627225944.GB16658@bork.org> References: <20060627201302.GA16658@bork.org> <7vy7vi70bm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060627220421.GA7234@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vu0666x2r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 28 00:59:51 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvMX7-00005w-Rb for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:59:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932561AbWF0W7r (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932569AbWF0W7q (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:46 -0400 Received: from galileo.bork.org ([134.117.69.57]:35522 "EHLO galileo.bork.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932561AbWF0W7p (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by galileo.bork.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD89404C; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from galileo.bork.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (galileo.bork.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21240-04; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by galileo.bork.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9322C4197; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:59:44 -0400 (EDT) To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vu0666x2r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at bork.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Since 'test' is a throwaway branch anyway, might it not make sense to > > clone master to test and then rebase satadev onto it? Thus you would end > > up with the linear history: > > o---o---o---o---o---o---o test (satadev') > > | | > > 2.6.17 master > > > > You know that master works and satadev' doesn't, and the bisection is > > simple. After you find that bug, you can throw away the test branch. > > I've considered suggesting it before looking at what is in > satadev. It is merged up in the Linus head right now, so you > are talking about really _huge_ changes that are not yours and > with a lot of merges. > > It usually is much easier to rebase your own code than other's. > > BTW, I really hate MUA's that does Mail-Followup-To to somebody > else. This message for example would not help Martin more than > it would help you, but your MUA somehow redirected it to him. I think the rebase idea is going to be painful. There are a *lot* of changesets in between 2.6.17 and satadev, due to the post-2.6.17 devel cycle opening. I rebasing quickly, but it would require a bit of merging. I'll try tomorrow to see how bad it really is. Thank you both for the ideas. I think I've got enough information now to continue. mh -- Martin Hicks || mort@bork.org || PGP/GnuPG: 0x4C7F2BEE