Re: [kernelci-members] Working with the KernelCI project

Nikolai Kondrashov
2020-10-01T08:30:24Z

On 9/30/20 10:07 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:13 PM Nikolai Kondrashov
> <Nikolai.Kondrashov@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Regarding bisection results I was hoping we could represent that data
>> implicitly. I.e. by having information about which 'revision' comes after
>> which, and executing a query to find a pair of adjacent revisions one of which
>> has the bug and another doesn't. In theory that should be possible, but in
>> practice... well, you know :) If that fails, we can attach that data
>> explicitly somewhere. Or we can simply start with that to have it faster.
>
> Humm... interesting. I guess it can work. We could mark the issue as
> happening on the cause commit and as not happening on the previous
> commit.
> However, one problem is that we don't keep info about the previous
> commit as of now, we only store the root cause commit in the database.

Something has to maintain the information on history connectivity, and so far
the plan was to let the submitting system do it. E.g. refer to a clone of the
repo they're testing. There's definitely more research and design to be done.

However, you should've been testing the previous commit to be able to find the
root cause commit? Shouldn't you?

> Another is that in git it's possible to have several preceding
> commits.

Right, I didn't think through that yet. We might need a separate history link
object, then. Do you know if a commit can have more than two parents?

Nick