From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA303EA8E for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708557629; cv=none; b=q4zTTwr2jaWhaPxjKLfaDb3rEMtc40KbZgk3ucgcT6MwtLrqwOhIXoHcGA0idGZHUR+AJH9DR9EvfB+Tx7ocS7bmGpXDwrauFWTgpaHdtRzh682CYyE05JOw+dVF4MPR5R51xAUvreGSU6ijVP59SbnZ6+4SywjAQQzNyOkxFq8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708557629; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EUlCnQi5DnNo9L5beAFGJBTyUap8U+I7lWRzUE4qL5o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lR6Q/szGBOABusaFbfL2kvVHzP3Yi03wtHgqCzCHRjh6fJccP4sL1RF6FLrzl5kRRdCaPLbxO0hDKJc2w8+GJwZ0XfpXbFoUdPRpWE3PMoe4CjRX7sdd/aQ4ZAnXCJdaEKsKBEsvJxmE5V3jphVd2e0Uu+htbYYnDa6dzZv41mM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=ZJZUGKks; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ZJZUGKks" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEA1339B2; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:20:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=EUlCnQi5DnNo9L5beAFGJBTyUap8U+I7lWRzUE 4qL5o=; b=ZJZUGKksnR1SIf6QigCdaFXKPAlH7dAvi1o/+2/SjnIZL+xILtCFN4 6d2JDUgOjpqvWGJMJIpwZsuGlQ+e00uvKwAFeFxTyPHN3xDNGNhJwUdkRvhWEIPp Qv+To6uFY3+EzXAQDo5ddOlfXoNDY8AFZ8wENJUwnPXtVg1zlXh8k= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65F1339B1; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:20:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.176.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64B7E339AD; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:20:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Britton Kerin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: script to pre-build all commits in a git-bisect, and use them during testing In-Reply-To: (Britton Kerin's message of "Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:55 -0900") References: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:20:22 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CA543882-D10F-11EE-9108-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Britton Kerin writes: > Problem: it's annoying to have to build each commit when > git-bisect'ing for something that isn't being tested automatically (so > no git bisect run). > > Solution: https://github.com/bkerin/git-batch-bisect So, because "git bisect run" would not be usable for whatever reason to run a "build and then test" from the command line, you would build all revisions using git batch-bisect runinall 'autoreconf --install && ./configure && make' before starting to test any revision, and then after building everything, you would do: git batch-bisect runincurrent ./test_program git batch-bisect good git batch-bisect runincurrent ./test_program git batch-bisect bad ... where ./test_program cannot signal if it is good or bad mechanically (e.g., by exiting with non-zero status for failure) but the testers need to judge the good/bad manually before they can say "git batch-bisect good/bad", I presume. It's an interesting workaround for a test program that cannot be automated. You are willing to waste CPU cycles and diskspace to build upfront and hold the build products for all N revisions in the range, where with bisection you would have to build far fewer revisions (which is the point of bisection), to optimize for developer/tester latency, which tends to be more expensive. The trade-off may make good sense.