From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Ealdwulf Wuffinga <ealdwulf@googlemail.com>
Cc: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>,
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFE: "git bisect reverse"
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:11:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A1E00F1.4030709@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <efe2b6d70905271507s187babe9yf19a25268ab0b95e@mail.gmail.com>
Ealdwulf Wuffinga wrote:
>
> For git-bisect, Sam and H Peter are proposing a heuristic to trade off
> between information gained and likelihood of testing a bad commit. For
> bbchop, I am already doing calculating the information gain directly,
> so if I can incorporate the probability that a commit is broken - has
> to be skipped - then the trade-off will happen automatically.
> Therefore it would be useful to have some plausible theory as to how
> the probability of a broken commit should be calculated, given some
> known-broken and known-not-broken commits.
>
Again, given a bisection, the information gain by "bisecting" at point x
where 0 < x < 1 is:
-(x log2 x)-((1-x) log2 (1-x))
At x = 0.5 this gives the optimal 1 bit, but the curve is rather flat
near the top. You don't drop to 1/2 bit of information until
x = 0.11 or 0.89, and it doesn't drop to 1/4 bit of information until
x = 0.04 or 0.96.
Thus, the lack of optimality in searching away from a skip point is much
smaller than the potential cost of having to having to skip multiple
nearby points.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-28 3:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-26 22:21 RFE: "git bisect reverse" H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-27 3:00 ` Sam Vilain
2009-05-27 4:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-27 5:26 ` Christian Couder
2009-05-27 21:11 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-05-27 21:18 ` Clemens Buchacher
2009-05-27 22:07 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-05-27 23:08 ` Sam Vilain
2009-05-28 20:29 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-05-29 4:20 ` Sam Vilain
2009-05-31 22:41 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-05-28 3:11 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-05-28 21:07 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-05-28 21:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-31 22:18 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-05-27 20:11 ` Christian Couder
2009-05-27 8:22 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-05-27 20:26 ` Matthieu Moy
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=4A1E00F1.4030709@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=drizzd@aon.at \
--cc=ealdwulf@googlemail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@vilain.net \
/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).