{"thread":{"id":"4482","subject":"bisect and gitk happy together","startedAt":"2006-06-12T11:41:34Z","lastAt":"2006-06-12T15:10:19Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Martin Langhoff","Linus Torvalds"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"21643","messageId":"46a038f90606120441p74dd4872y441fe04470f4acd5@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"4482","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"bisect and gitk happy together","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-06-12T11:41:34Z","receivedAt":"2006-06-12T11:41:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"I was using git-bisect earlier today, and at the exact point where it\ntold be about the bad commit, I opened gitk, which was showing all the\nbad and good commits. It is great!\n\nTwo \"user\" notes, however:\n\n - git-bisect visualise wasn't as useful as just a plain gitk. (This\nmay be because I was working with ~60 commits in a medium-sized\nproject).\n\n - gitk didn't show the bad commit tagged specially, even if\ngit-bisect had just identified it. Of course I could find it, but I\nhad all the other good/bad commits well labelled. And not the one I\nwas looking for. Odd.\n\nIn any case, the bisect + gitk combo saved the day. I'm too ashamed to\ntell what the bug actually was, though ;-)\n\n\nmartin\n"},{"id":"21646","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0606120807350.5498@g5.osdl.org","threadId":"4482","inReplyTo":"46a038f90606120441p74dd4872y441fe04470f4acd5@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: bisect and gitk happy together","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@osdl.org","sentAt":"2006-06-12T15:10:19Z","receivedAt":"2006-06-12T15:10:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Martin Langhoff wrote:\n> \n> - git-bisect visualise wasn't as useful as just a plain gitk. (This\n> may be because I was working with ~60 commits in a medium-sized\n> project).\n\nDefinitely. Try just firing up gitk when you're bisecting a kernel archive \nwith thousands of commits, and complex history..\n\nThat's when \"git bisect visualize\" really helps: when git bisect has \nalready narrowed down the list of commits from \"5 years\" to \"1 week\", but \nyou still have maybe a hundred-odd commits to go.\n\nI agree that just plain \"gitk\" is actually nicer if you want to see the \nwhole context. It's just that often the context is pretty damn confusing ;)\n\n> - gitk didn't show the bad commit tagged specially, even if\n> git-bisect had just identified it. Of course I could find it, but I\n> had all the other good/bad commits well labelled. And not the one I\n> was looking for. Odd.\n\nIt should be the head of the \"bisect\" branch, and naturally tagged that \nway.\n\n\t\t\tLinus\n"}]}