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=-3.2 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 5F8511F43C for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751181AbdKKP2M (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:28:12 -0500 Received: from cpanel2.indieserve.net ([199.212.143.6]:43489 "EHLO cpanel2.indieserve.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750954AbdKKP2L (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:28:11 -0500 Received: from cpec03f0ed08c7f-cm68b6fcf980b0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([174.118.92.171]:50432 helo=localhost.localdomain) by cpanel2.indieserve.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eDXha-00045W-F7; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:28:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:27:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: Junio C Hamano cc: Christian Couder , Git Mailing list Subject: Re: "git bisect" takes exactly one bad commit and one or more good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LFD 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel2.indieserve.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel2.indieserve.net: authenticated_id: rpjday+crashcourse.ca/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: cpanel2.indieserve.net: rpjday@crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > > >> "You use it by first telling it a "bad" commit that is known to > >> contain the bug, and a "good" commit that is known to be before > >> the bug was introduced." > > > > Yeah, 'and at least a "good" commit' would be better. > > Make it "at least one" instead, perhaps? > > I somehow thought that you technically could force bisection with 0 > good commit, even though no sane person would do so. For the > matter, in practice nobody starts with more than one good commit, > and for that reason, I doubt that the proposed change to overstress > the fact that you could give two or more "good" ones when starting > has that much practical value. The tradeoff of losing the clarity > coming from giving only the simplest usage pattern for trying to be > technically more correct that is proposed by this change does not > sound too good, but it may be just me (who prefers white lies in the > end-user docs when it buys us more simplicity and clarity). . i realize that one of each commit is the simplest use case, but the scenario that occurred to me is a bunch of branches being merged and, suddenly, you have a bug, and you're not sure where it came from so you identify a number of good commits, one per merged branch, and go from there. also, making it clear you can have more than one good commit is consistent with the synopses, which use ellipses to represent that very thing. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================