From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] automatically skip away from broken commits Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:02:54 +0200 Message-ID: <200906110602.54861.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> References: <20090606043853.4031.78284.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <7vtz2nlrfs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Christian Couder , "H. Peter Anvin" , git@vger.kernel.org, Sam Vilain , Ingo Molnar To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 11 06:03:51 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MEbW2-00005e-KE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:03:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762397AbZFKEC4 convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:02:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762393AbZFKECy (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:02:54 -0400 Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:37808 "EHLO smtp5-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762381AbZFKECx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:02:53 -0400 Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EBED48015; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:02:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bureau.boubyland (gre92-7-82-243-130-161.fbx.proxad.net [82.243.130.161]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D825FD4806E; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:02:43 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 In-Reply-To: <7vtz2nlrfs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Le Wednesday 10 June 2009, Junio C Hamano a =E9crit : > Christian Couder writes: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Junio C Hamano=20 wrote: > >> Christian Couder writes: > >>> My opinion is that we should not penalize all the people working = on > >>> "quite clean" projects and also people working on "not clean" > >>> projects who are able to recover, on the pretence that there are > >>> other people on these "not clean" projects who are not. > > > > ... > > When I wrote "clean", I just mean with not too many untestable comm= its. > > Ok, then the "opinion" in the above paragraph was simply stating the > obvious: we should have a good "bisect skip". I obviously agree with > that ;-). > > In other words, you were not arguing against my observation that your > algorithm would not be much better than randomly picking the next com= mit > when the best one is untestable, unless the history is linear. I think my algorithm is better enough than a random one to be worth usi= ng by=20 default. Like HPA says it's in practice like a random one with a bias. That's because the "goodness" value is something that has a relationshi= p=20 with the graph topology. The "goodness" value is some kind of distance = from=20 either the good or the bad commits. The farther from the good and bad=20 commits the higher is the "goodness" value. And my algorithm tries to a= void=20 commits with low "goodness" value because they should be those near the= =20 good and bad commits and we know that those near the good and bad commi= ts=20 wont give a lot of information. > I guess=20 > that was what I was confused with. I thought you were saying that we > should give preferential treatment to people with linear history. > > > Ok. I started working on optionaly using a PRNG but I am not sure t= hat > > you will want to add another one. > > It may still make sense to replace, not add to, that "fixed alternati= ng > distance in goodness space" with a randomized one, for the reasons HP= A > stated, especially for avoiding to give a false impression that the m= agic > constants are picked for some reason. But there _is_ a reason. Best regards, Christian.