From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7351FAF4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:01:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750816AbdBNXA7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:00:59 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]:36417 "EHLO mail-lf0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750731AbdBNXA6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:00:58 -0500 Received: by mail-lf0-f67.google.com with SMTP id h65so12085975lfi.3 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:00:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WtTE5jB3DuJvPOx3qL9TAY2ZoJo+JeHba+xh+OvQSZM=; b=uaRL8FKJsH4qvSe103xl5srYK7rBFukNc6V0XgsDWiOeZli+7RhyPTKTN/DJR9YegF cRvp2kfaRGSV1PsgJhfPTJ72us78jPSp0qXgSf+3o1AMvqZuKdKSRhJNTU9JGRGRN2ox RVjzHxU9ZniCPgDuqGtZA+0RWRdeLQ69PCpqDeUTp6E9xmgXDTaxvJgPRAJ3jFXIsMMZ 0/uEb9s1V5imdR0R/QXV4+ZzSmhwFKZO6PlPAUpq6jMT7Dn43WQacqZzL3ZQu5TFyzBW sVFu698u17MD50DqGowqY4c1BF6Z1M02iTEZMwTAm4NBwGQgT+NNClLncA+MupRuJ6Iv +Fzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WtTE5jB3DuJvPOx3qL9TAY2ZoJo+JeHba+xh+OvQSZM=; b=p6Qd723MAkCziFA8ktY7tAcuc5Fo6SKqv2O+Vf8RzPq9RI6uOnrdf7rx0m4/vWD2So go8xTkoo5PSoGtx1m28W/+dcrl8p7RoCYIWW+FA8qIsqrksjLZhU6o+X4jueq69whv32 Mv3V4oCSCfypCFgenlPg4zTqrSdwSecwVBhOUvdPQJje5BFXqZfJj1ZSrMToYkgztzFy /wg8kulaydNa0MyvGXLqXgaDpGNVksC37Kk+fnccofs8V93s+BQZtoDPMfiNQ9G0YE3S ictD3XBLVop2VDYa8xwTobGRqbt8Vo6EqLtQZPfYtRoZVNATowywP/gFEAWhAKHCqTzo cPOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mr3xQW6n7Ejm98z/2ILgW1vpRmDkcLzSy5wVmoHd684KcYpMX+5kh8RloxD8Vrj71DZ1jsg2dRQEblEQ== X-Received: by 10.25.157.146 with SMTP id g140mr9880718lfe.123.1487113256625; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:00:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.199.13 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:00:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Christian Couder Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [git-for-windows] Re: Continuous Testing of Git on Windows To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git-for-windows@googlegroups.com, git Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> Johannes Schindelin writes: >>> >>> > That is why I taught the Git for Windows CI job that tests the four >>> > upstream Git integration branches to *also* bisect test breakages and >>> > then upload comments to the identified commit on GitHub >>> >>> Good. I do not think it is useful to try 'pu' as an aggregate and >>> expect it to always build and work [*1*], but your "bisect and >>> pinpoint" approach makes it useful to identify individual topic that >>> brings in a breakage. >> >> Sadly the many different merge bases[*1*] between `next` and `pu` (which >> are the obvious good/bad points for bisecting automatically) bring my >> build agents to its knees. I may have to disable the bisecting feature as >> a consequence. Yeah, this is a bug in the bisect algorithm. Fixing it is in the GSoC 2017 Ideas. > Probably a less resource intensive approach is to find the tips of > the topics not in 'next' but in 'pu' and test them. That would give > you which topic(s) are problematic, which is a better starting point > than "Oh, 'pu' does not build". After identifying which branch is > problematic, bisection of individual topic would be of more manageable > size. It is still probably more resource intensive than it couls be. [...] > This is one of these times I wish "git bisect --first-parent" were > available. Implementing "git bisect --first-parent" is also part of the GSoC 2017 Ideas. By the way it should not be very difficult as a patch to do this and more was proposed a long time ago: https://public-inbox.org/git/4D3CDDF9.6080405@intel.com/ > The above "log" gives me 27 merges right now, which > should be bisectable within 5 rounds to identify a single broken > topic (if there is only one breakage, that is).