From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C3A201A9 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751454AbdBTUbM (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:31:12 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:36184 "EHLO mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751240AbdBTUbL (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:31:11 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id c85so90701446wmi.1 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:31:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gal-ro.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=9oPgi+7UDxwEphZRP3iw5RaV2LrI1n7vz4nJoy3k05I=; b=gZdNmz8GUdNCilVgsJchSB66Z1E3t7lu/sfBNdP7ER3SRcRI1OK1zRTj5vgA18Y4uX vmuCtDbN8CMJzy4AGeaCrcP/7vTRlrDgZciwQRscnmUx7drZKNmYDXfMgyhI7wgRmpeQ pdCP81WD6yGsv4YhGhVy+rLkUSM/em/PqlsiBvhOSU4yBzab974sVafj/aidwwd080WC q55LREfPDjFjtOj2RfQ2Y6qezhVKeLRvaGNlPGWlucA6dN59+RcckUiYqTk4gVqX+4Si 6pWZLrnZ+N30GNe2mBZB/QKqeDDCBRM5ltrbLeve+CATLXBaZ48Y0YJ7nBDog4XdYB34 puKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9oPgi+7UDxwEphZRP3iw5RaV2LrI1n7vz4nJoy3k05I=; b=ecDyR8OYOXodo9aAzb0+k32MbygSmZr4mb8yZT+TOzKWq40KToT67Vyvm7k/h1geep GBbcsM8+H65bq1xL8wv0mTrw0LEMRWRD4yXoSL6FZg8bdPQdkwjNYqquWN/5xn+l3Lf2 IZ9uN9w1+c/pwYyP6LzWTczzijVH7rjE5MULUns6Ovy0Qo8xRPvbitBBzRgOs1U0+4Uq wpgLUcFR/7auwrfXDP0S+fRq0y1hd6y2+IIF8GTMpf5icsP309ZzGEIAUj9qZBj4fDKv 924uHHHZcg6W0bso+/kHreEdUhvXPwpVv/hffc7N/OC3yX6fA91Rgh80sUesb6qLHXSE cYEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mqMZBH505JmopTvOJI8r6B8MpVepI/EJzYbwS7BbNLKesLFijbrIJh2N9O7ekE3rTm1qGLkso23ofYjw== X-Received: by 10.28.186.197 with SMTP id k188mr21036936wmf.25.1487622669073; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:31:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.226.6 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:31:08 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [77.178.206.182] In-Reply-To: References: <3ff5ce3c-285f-cb9a-d1d4-46323524dab7@kdbg.org> <477d3533-d453-9499-e06e-72f45488d421@kdbg.org> <58d25138-de2e-6995-444f-79c3ac0bbad2@gmail.com> From: Alex Hoffman Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:31:08 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WQBWQCGEOOPIv_jx0DTSsviGX0w Message-ID: Subject: Re: Git bisect does not find commit introducing the bug To: Oleg Taranenko Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Nar=C4=99bski?= , Jacob Keller , Johannes Sixt , Christian Couder , Stephan Beyer , git Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org I see two different problems each with a different assumption (see the definition of "bisectable" in the email of Junio C Hamano): 1. (Current) Assume the entire history graph is bisectable. DO: Search where in the entire graph the first 'trait'/transition occurs. 2. (New) Assume only the graph between one good commit and one bad commit is bisectable. DO: Search where the first transition occurs in the graph between these two commits. It seems that the real world needs a solution also for the second problem (example if the good commit is the FIRST good commit of a feature or if the good commit is not the first good commit, but you definitely know, that it broke first somewhere in between the good and bad commit). I find the way to go as Oleg proposed is gittish enough (with a new parameter --strategy). Beside I would underline that also the second problem is a bisect problem, just for another graph, thus it makes perfect sense to extend 'git bisect' for this. Does that look reasonably?