From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>,
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
git@vger.kernel.org, Shuang He <shuang.he@intel.com>
Subject: Re: AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: [2.6.39 regression] X locks up hard right after logging in)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:48:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vliya77xl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=smoaARKyzWxFjid-E7qehmyAX8w@mail.gmail.com> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Fri, 13 May 2011 11:41:46 -0700")
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> When you say that v2.6.38 is good, that means that everything that can
> be reached from 2.6.38 is good.
>
> NOT AT ALL the same thing as "git bisect requires v2.6.38" would be.
>
> The "requires v2.6.38" would basically say that anything that doesn't
> contain v2.6.38 is "off-limits". It's fine to call them "good", but
> that's not the same thing as "git bisect good v2.6.38".
>
> Why?
>
> Think about it. It's the "reachable from v2.6.38" vs "cannot reach
> v2.6.38" difference. That's a HUGE difference.
Could you please clarify "off-limits"?
Do you mean "anything before v2.6.38 did not even have this feature, so
the result of testing a version in that range does not give us any
information"? The feature didn't even exist, so a bug can never trigger,
and seeing "good" from such a version does not mean everything reachable
from it is good? Upon seeing "bad" result from a version before v2.6.38,
what can we conclude? The breakage cannot possibly come from the feature
that is being checked, so the procedure to check itself is busted?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-13 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-12 17:15 AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: [2.6.39 regression] X locks up hard right after logging in) Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-12 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-12 18:54 ` Johannes Sixt
2011-05-12 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-13 13:39 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-13 8:20 ` Christian Couder
2011-05-13 13:38 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-13 14:56 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-13 16:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-13 16:13 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-13 17:24 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-13 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-13 18:34 ` Johannes Sixt
2011-05-13 18:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-13 18:47 ` Johannes Sixt
2011-05-13 18:48 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2011-05-13 18:55 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2011-05-13 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
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=7vliya77xl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@mit.edu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuang.he@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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