Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (part 2)

Ingo Molnar
2007-03-01T10:48:50Z

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> update: f3ccb06f3b8e0cf42b579db21f3ca7f17fcc3f38 works for me too, and
> 01363220f5d23ef68276db8974e46a502e43d01d is broken. I too will attempt
> to bisect this.

hm. There's some weird bisection artifact here. Here are the commits i
tested, in git-log order:

#1 commit 01363220f5d23ef68276db8974e46a502e43d01d bad
#2 commit ee404566f97f9254433399fbbcfa05390c7c55f7 bad
#3 commit f3ccb06f3b8e0cf42b579db21f3ca7f17fcc3f38 good
#4 commit c827ba4cb49a30ce581201fd0ba2be77cde412c7 bad

if i tell git-bisect that #1 is bad and #3 is good, then it offers me #2
- that's OK. But when i tell it that #2 is bad, it offers #4 - which is
out of order! The bisection goes off into la-la land after that and
never gets back to a commit that is /after/ the good commit. How is this
possible? (I upgraded from git-1.4.4 to 1.5.0 to make sure this isnt
some git bug that's already fixed.)

i'll try to straighten this out manually, perhaps #3 is in some merge
branch that confuses bisection. Or maybe i misunderstood how git-bisect
works.

Ingo