From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: [NON-TOY PATCH] git bisect: introduce 'fixed' and 'unfixed' Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20080624163810.GA4654@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080624174157.GB9500@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 24 21:23:04 2008 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 1KBE6Y-0007j7-R6 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:23:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752976AbYFXTWH (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:22:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752761AbYFXTWG (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:22:06 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:35469 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751975AbYFXTWF (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:22:05 -0400 Received: (qmail 5358 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Jun 2008 19:22:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Jun 2008 19:22:02 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080624174157.GB9500@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LNX 882 2007-12-20) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 06:09:28PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > And this is my first attempt at a proper patch for it. > > > > Now with documentation, and hopefully all places where the > > user is being told about a "bad" commit. > > This looks reasonably sane to me. The only thing I can think of that > we're missing is that "git bisect visualize" will still show the refs as > "bisect/bad" and "bisect/good". > > To fix that, you'd have to ask people to start the bisect by saying "I > am bisecting to find a fix, not a breakage." And then you could change > the refnames and all of the messages as appropriate. That would also be a good way of taking care of the problem where someone gets distracted while running a slow test, forgets what they're looking for, and marks the result as "bad" instead of "unfixed". -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*