From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFE] allow git bisect to figure out in which revision a bug was fixed Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:41:17 -0700 Message-ID: <7vy6qhwib6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vfxcpdbsh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090721202848.GA3453@localhost.localdomain> <7vprbtbwhu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v4ot5zfqe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Josef Bacik , Jeff Moyer , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 22 04:41:39 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 1MTRlw-0007W0-Vz for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:41:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752492AbZGVCl0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:41:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752457AbZGVClZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:41:25 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:48388 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751621AbZGVClZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:41:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F095F8D2; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DB21F8D0; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:41:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Tue\, 21 Jul 2009 21\:20\:24 -0400 \(EDT\)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 25805892-7669-11DE-88F7-F699A5B33865-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Nicolas Pitre writes: >> >> > Why not simply automatically inverting the meaning of good and >> > bad based on which commit is the ancestor of the other initially? >> >> Because neither may be an ancestor of the other? > > In most cases it has to be, no? Not necessarily. I think it depends on your workflow. When you bisect a topic branch that forked from 'master' some time ago, it is not unreasonable to start it with $ git bisect start topic master instead of $ git bisect start topic $(git merge-base master topic) Recent bisect would force you to check the merge base first as a sanity check, but I think you already need to have determined what good and bad means at that point if you take the route you suggested.