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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).