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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 224171F404 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:05:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935145AbeBLNFY (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:05:24 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:55098 "EHLO mail-wm0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934075AbeBLNFX (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:05:23 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id i186so9449576wmi.4 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 05:05:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IqryNSqPCaZjiJAQ+8zYCFfsWeOrhzEGJjJO5kZhVFQ=; b=mk/8SLOjBY73+GHQYPFNd/donAtf2n2Rda2HSyNMS47WHAtBBDfwlT4IlEP/jkfPcS m4FPQxEzeBVDwAa+kTSKCyp0Nj8tuLOPKS2Bc8Ll0YnP9kiztVReJe6SxQGAdiKbfM4y 20BY65CEKysu7aCgZKp1iZvB8pTzpxqlbUb176bHePGyY0We2JqsomzUXjYWQYLxjcTZ mwJbhl/fW2z6XS1sl/WenZWIec5Jo0+A/zUELMv96KxmTp8pavlYE/koXfuZXsw4KyRz STvAOn8k8KougMVbu5XsKf8zZgdJyKjwg26jzQD+u7cQ5toP9Iv3hrm/EvGNSfcQ8cnH /+IA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IqryNSqPCaZjiJAQ+8zYCFfsWeOrhzEGJjJO5kZhVFQ=; b=BiLIy8nZFhOenaldFaW6V81P/XF03Qhm8Ue2W6oZa2bVq4YHT7fFQw9v12LI363hFm RgbSqKQdpkG8S0pA8UQO0BUEar+1dZr/JkMfdQqwRi9Qa1pFcWaY2kUpxDnE1zi8lJL8 j694RpWohSAjyALfknLGXIBVYQ8OcecrMZ3YZfh7WKN8utyL8Dv8y/BEWGeeLqLEhIR4 vo6b2QO8S/r5707UzbLuLsRZqLuSSITTth5uU0FYE6ux6WAPg/PNq0XXkfSqHKaLhz8N 5c55C/yDRC3SxRFwB4KCkFOvakjPJXhanIaKBgkQk3c/Io5YBQ9c1f5IH5OtjGUjwrAR fYtg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPARib/10axsLAxmrOJZQApPYmsrP5xe/36bJ/OS/dgTymUTxYYX G9fMWwkB6+iXcF3F5f291cs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226jQcy7+6+WBCH6ERnZsFv7dxrgf6HzMrF5D3HdPWwbg18ecInBuuaKmbjG/mQa4Tk3Skk8sg== X-Received: by 10.28.71.198 with SMTP id m67mr3864542wmi.40.1518440722543; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 05:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (x4db19afd.dyn.telefonica.de. [77.177.154.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j132sm9034738wmd.38.2018.02.12.05.05.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 05:05:21 -0800 (PST) From: =?UTF-8?q?SZEDER=20G=C3=A1bor?= To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: =?UTF-8?q?SZEDER=20G=C3=A1bor?= , Philip Oakley , Git Mailing list Subject: Re: "git bisect run make" adequate to locate first unbuildable commit? Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:05:11 +0100 Message-Id: <20180212130511.32620-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.1.181.g4b60b0bfb6 In-Reply-To: References: <9803DEA99A6545F7A3F9A3CE08FE2263@PhilipOakley> <7135CFE5288C49EEA02785C1F407B46D@PhilipOakley> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > > 1. there may be feature branches that bypass the known good starting > > commit, which can cause understanding issues as those side > > branches that predate the start point are also considered > > potential bu commits. > > ok, but let's make sure i understand what defines a possible commit > that "introduces" the bug. if i define two bisection commits > and , then i've always assumed that what i'm after is a commit > for which: > > 1) is reachable from > 2) is reachable from > > this seems fairly obvious. Well, maybe _you_ are after such a commit, but bisect is after a commit for which 1) is reachable from (i.e. the same as your first point) 2) is not reachable from (which is not the same as your second point, notably when it comes to commits on side branches that branched off before and got merged later). > now, as you suggest, it's possible that the > "bug" was introduced on a feature branch that bypasses my choice of > but, at *some* point, that feature branch would have to be > merged to the point where it was now reachable from and, in the > context of bisection, *that* merge commit would represent where the > bug was introduced, no? No. Consider this piece of history: v v --a---b---C---d---e---M---k---L-- \ / f---g---H---i---j ^ first bad Then the command 'git bisect start L C' will first consider the following as "possible commit that introduces the bug": d e f g H i j M k L (IOW all commits listed by 'git log ^C L') and will then systematically narrow down until it will find commit H as the transition from good to bad.