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=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 C3CD41FE90 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1952868AbdDYS1C (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:27:02 -0400 Received: from bsmtp1.bon.at ([213.33.87.15]:52134 "EHLO bsmtp1.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1952865AbdDYS0z (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:26:55 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp1.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wCBWK3ByBz5tlC; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:26:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D3D42D2; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:26:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2017, #04; Wed, 19) To: Junio C Hamano References: <3bd4a2d7-ada9-6198-8cf1-573d80cae1b4@kdbg.org> Cc: Christian Couder , Johannes Schindelin , Lars Schneider , git , Jeff King , Brandon Williams From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <1336f7a6-4785-d60d-d100-df38e22aa9e8@kdbg.org> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:26:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 25.04.2017 um 08:52 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> The idea of marking git-gui and gitk histories that none of their >> commits is checked out: it erases all Git source code from the working >> directory, and a later bisection step places all code back and it >> requires a full build. Not a big deal with Git, but there are much >> larger code bases. >> >> The current bisect behavior makes this idea unworkable. For me, it was >> a big step backwards when it was implemented. :-( > > I think it is sort-of unfair to blame bisect for that. It talks > more about how "coolest merge evar!" cross project merges are > unworkable in practice. No, it has nothing to do with the "coolest merge ever". The same problem occurs when I'm working on a topic branch: A--....--B <- topic / --g--....--G <- integration branch ("good by default") While fiddling with B, I find a bug and suspect it somewhere on the topic from A to B. When A has a change that causes a substantial or complete rebuild, testing g causes burden for no good reason. But, as I said, this is a tangent. I have no mission to change git bisect. -- Hannes