public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Hounschell <markh@compro.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel git bisect question
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:56:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D7A7064.6030607@compro.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1299869490.9910.49.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

On 03/11/2011 01:51 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 19:37 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 01:31:53PM -0500, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2011 04:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 03:27:00PM -0500, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>>>>> Between git bisect [good | bad ]s should I always "make clean" or can I
>>>>> count on the build system to take care of everything properly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to bisect between 2.6.35 and 2.6.36. What have I done wrong?
>>> Here is exactly what I've done. Why after my second "git bisect bad" do
>>> I get a Makefile for 2.6.35-rc1 and then after the fourth I get a Makefile
>>> for 2.6.34??
>>
>> The development is not linear.
>> So you see a commit developed on top of 2.6.34 that was included in 2.6.35.
>> This is normal.
> 
> Right.
> 
> Mark, don't be embarrassed, this is a common question for those that
> start using git bisect. Because of the way git merges branches, you may
> end up in an old version of a kernel, while looking between two newer
> versions.
> 
> 
> 
>     v2.6.36
>         |
>         +
>         |\
>         | \
> v2.6.35 +  \
>         |   +---- developers branch
>         |  /
>         | /
>         |/
>         +--- v 2.6.34
>         |
> 
> If a developer branched off of 2.6.34 and then his work got merged after
> v2.6.35, your bisect may easily go into that developers branch between
> 2.6.35 and 2.6.36, where you will suddenly see 2.6.34 appear and
> disappear within bisect iterations. IOW, don't trust what you see in the
> Makefile ;)
> 
> Understand?
> 

Understood. I was starting to think it was me. Thanks.

Mark

      reply	other threads:[~2011-03-11 18:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-10 20:27 kernel git bisect question Mark Hounschell
2011-03-10 21:14 ` Sam Ravnborg
2011-03-10 21:17   ` Mark Hounschell
2011-03-10 21:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-11 18:31   ` Mark Hounschell
2011-03-11 18:37     ` Sam Ravnborg
2011-03-11 18:41       ` Mark Hounschell
2011-03-11 18:51       ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-11 18:56         ` Mark Hounschell [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4D7A7064.6030607@compro.net \
    --to=markh@compro.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox