From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: Why can't I use git-bisect to find the first *good* commit? Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:40:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4D909DD1.2050904@viscovery.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Git Mailing List To: Andrew Garber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 28 16:40:30 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 1Q4DcL-0007v5-Be for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:40:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754572Ab1C1OkZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:40:25 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:29275 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754613Ab1C1OkV (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:40:21 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4DcA-00033E-2d; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:40:18 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50711660F; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:40:17 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 3/28/2011 16:29, schrieb Andrew Garber: >> I'd expect this to work: >> >> $ git bisect start >> $ git bisect good >> $ git bisect bad HEAD~100 > > So would I. I think the behavior of git bisect should be changed. > Right now, it's trying to find the first bad commit. Instead, it > should be trying to find the first commit where the code's good/bad > state *changed*. IOW, it should be able to handle both of the > following cases: > > good <--- oldest > good > good > bad <--- the commit we want bisect to find > bad > bad <--- newest > > bad <--- oldest > bad > bad > good <--- the commit we want bisect to find > good > good <--- newest > > It shouldn't matter which end we start on, so long as one end gets > marks good, and the other end gets marked bad. Define "end" and "other end"! It's not that trivial. o--o--o--B / --o--o--o--o--G When I have this history and I mark B as bad and G as good, will I now find the first bad or the first good commit? -- Hannes