From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: RFC: reverse bisect Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:09:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20110930040924.GA28724@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110929142027.GA4936@zelva.suse.cz> <4E849C5B.7050201@kdbg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michal Vyskocil , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 30 06:09:33 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R9UPk-0001RR-27 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:09:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751745Ab1I3EJ1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:09:27 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:48848 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750896Ab1I3EJ0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:09:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 29514 invoked by uid 107); 30 Sep 2011 04:14:29 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:14:29 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:09:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E849C5B.7050201@kdbg.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:27:07PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > git bisect good/bad/skip/run > > Last time this came up on the list I suggested to add the following > commands: > > git bisect regression # a synonym for git bisect start > git bisect improvement # your --reverse That makes some sense to me. But I do wonder if you could simply get rid of the connotations of "good" and "bad" entirely, by thinking of it as simply looking for a commit that introduced some property. Like: # find a bug git bisect start git bisect yes ;# has the bug git bisect no ;# does not have the bug git bisect skip ;# no idea # find a feature being implemented git bisect start git bisect yes ;# has the feature git bisect no ;# does not have the feature git bisect skip ;# no idea IOW, I feel like we are having to handle this weird negation only because we have assigned a value judgement to the tests. That instead of saying "yes, we have this bug", we say "bad", which only makes sense if you are looking for a bad thing. You can still produce a negation in your mind, of course, by asking "when did this property go away". But that is usually about a bug being fixed, so the right answer is generally not a set of command line options, but to stop asking "when did bug X go away", and instead ask "when did the fix for bug X appear". One catch is that the run command assumes a successful exit is "good", and anything else is "bad". Which makes: git bisect run make test good for finding regressions, but is a little counterintuitive for the yes/no thing (a successful exit means "no"). -Peff