# git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent 7 messages from 2026-10-03 to 2026-10-03. Participants: Alejandro Colomar, D. Ben Knoble, Kristoffer Haugsbakk. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/66455 ## Alejandro Colomar, 2026-10-03 10:10 Subject: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: ``` Hi! I have this code, which I use to loop in a script using git-bisect(1): while git bisect visualize --oneline \ | wc -l \ | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; do if git rebase $gropts BISECT_HEAD >/dev/null 2>/dev/null; test $? -eq 0; then echo 'Rebase: success'; git bisect good BISECT_HEAD; else echo 'Rebase: conflict'; git rebase --abort >/dev/null; git bisect bad BISECT_HEAD; fi; done; ( I know this resembles "git rebase run", but I'm avoiding it, because passing all of that as a command is non-trivial (and I'd like to avoid having to write a separate script to pass its name to "git bisect run"). ) Having read the documentation for git-bisect(1), visualize reads several environment variables, and thus this code doesn't seem robust. What would be the plumbing version of the while-loop condition? git bisect visualize --oneline \ | wc -l \ | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, to stop looping. Have a lovely day! Alex -- ``` ## D. Ben Knoble, 2026-10-03 13:45 Subject: Re: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: ``` On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi! > > I have this code, which I use to loop in a script using git-bisect(1): > > while > git bisect visualize --oneline \ > | wc -l \ > | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; > do > if > git rebase $gropts BISECT_HEAD >/dev/null 2>/dev/null; > test $? -eq 0; Aside: this "test $? -eq 0" is a bit redundant, no? "if cmd" in shell works by checking whether "cmd" exits 0 or not. > then > echo 'Rebase: success'; > git bisect good BISECT_HEAD; > else > echo 'Rebase: conflict'; > git rebase --abort >/dev/null; > git bisect bad BISECT_HEAD; > fi; > done; > > ( > I know this resembles "git rebase run", but I'm avoiding it, because > passing all of that as a command is non-trivial (and I'd like to avoid > having to write a separate script to pass its name to "git bisect run"). > ) > > Having read the documentation for git-bisect(1), visualize reads several > environment variables, and thus this code doesn't seem robust. What > would be the plumbing version of the while-loop condition? > > git bisect visualize --oneline \ > | wc -l \ > | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; > > The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, > to stop looping. I think you are probably looking for the (size of the) set of commits between bisect/bad and all the bisect/good-* refs. So you might need to "git refs list" the good ones, and feed those as negated refs alongside bisect/bad to rev-list? In the general case, that wouldn't account for skipped commits as I understand it, where multiple commits are left at the end of the bisect, but in your script it doesn't look like you skip any. -- D. Ben Knoble ``` ## Alejandro Colomar, 2026-10-03 15:13 Subject: Re: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: ``` Hi Ben, > Date: 2026-10-03 09:45:17-0400 > From: "D. Ben Knoble" > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > I have this code, which I use to loop in a script using git-bisect(1): > > > > while > > git bisect visualize --oneline \ > > | wc -l \ > > | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; > > do > > if > > git rebase $gropts BISECT_HEAD >/dev/null 2>/dev/null; > > test $? -eq 0; > > Aside: this "test $? -eq 0" is a bit redundant, no? "if cmd" in shell > works by checking whether "cmd" exits 0 or not. Ouch! Indeed. IIRC, I originally had the test reversed (-ne 0), and later probably flipped without thinking it could be removed. :) > > > then > > echo 'Rebase: success'; > > git bisect good BISECT_HEAD; > > else > > echo 'Rebase: conflict'; > > git rebase --abort >/dev/null; > > git bisect bad BISECT_HEAD; > > fi; > > done; > > > > ( > > I know this resembles "git rebase run", but I'm avoiding it, because > > passing all of that as a command is non-trivial (and I'd like to avoid > > having to write a separate script to pass its name to "git bisect run"). > > ) > > > > Having read the documentation for git-bisect(1), visualize reads several > > environment variables, and thus this code doesn't seem robust. What > > would be the plumbing version of the while-loop condition? > > > > git bisect visualize --oneline \ > > | wc -l \ > > | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; > > > > The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, > > to stop looping. > > I think you are probably looking for the (size of the) set of commits > between bisect/bad and all the bisect/good-* refs. So you might need > to "git refs list" the good ones, and feed those as negated refs > alongside bisect/bad to rev-list? Yup, this seems to work: git refs list | grep refs/bisect/ | sed '/good/s/^/^/' | cut -f1 -d' ' | xargs git rev-list > > In the general case, that wouldn't account for skipped commits as I > understand it, where multiple commits are left at the end of the > bisect, but in your script it doesn't look like you skip any. Hmmmm. I'm now working on adding the ability to skip commits, so this would be a problem. Do you have any idea on how to deal with that? Have a lovely day! Alex > > -- > D. Ben Knoble -- ``` ## Kristoffer Haugsbakk, 2026-10-03 15:26 Subject: Re: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: <37597cc9-0cfe-4a1b-8c7e-1d229c9f7cf0@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: ``` On Sat, Oct 3, 2026, at 15:45, D. Ben Knoble wrote: >[snip] > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: >>[snip] >> The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, >> to stop looping. > > I think you are probably looking for the (size of the) set of commits > between bisect/bad and all the bisect/good-* refs. So you might need > to "git refs list" the good ones, and feed those as negated refs > alongside bisect/bad to rev-list? I think you can do that directly with `git rev-list --bisect` and the other variants that start with `--bisect-`. I have never used them myself. > > In the general case, that wouldn't account for skipped commits as I > understand it, where multiple commits are left at the end of the > bisect, but in your script it doesn't look like you skip any. ``` ## D. Ben Knoble, 2026-10-03 17:09 Subject: Re: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <37597cc9-0cfe-4a1b-8c7e-1d229c9f7cf0@app.fastmail.com> ``` On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 11:27 AM Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026, at 15:45, D. Ben Knoble wrote: > >[snip] > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: > >>[snip] > >> The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, > >> to stop looping. > > > > I think you are probably looking for the (size of the) set of commits > > between bisect/bad and all the bisect/good-* refs. So you might need > > to "git refs list" the good ones, and feed those as negated refs > > alongside bisect/bad to rev-list? > > I think you can do that directly with `git rev-list --bisect` and the > other variants that start with `--bisect-`. > > I have never used them myself. Thanks, TIL. -- D. Ben Knoble ``` ## D. Ben Knoble, 2026-10-03 17:10 Subject: Re: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: ``` On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 11:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > Date: 2026-10-03 09:45:17-0400 > > From: "D. Ben Knoble" > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: [snip] > > > Having read the documentation for git-bisect(1), visualize reads several > > > environment variables, and thus this code doesn't seem robust. What > > > would be the plumbing version of the while-loop condition? > > > > > > git bisect visualize --oneline \ > > > | wc -l \ > > > | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; > > > > > > The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, > > > to stop looping. > > > > I think you are probably looking for the (size of the) set of commits > > between bisect/bad and all the bisect/good-* refs. So you might need > > to "git refs list" the good ones, and feed those as negated refs > > alongside bisect/bad to rev-list? > > Yup, this seems to work: > > git refs list | grep refs/bisect/ | sed '/good/s/^/^/' | cut -f1 -d' ' | xargs git rev-list > > > > > In the general case, that wouldn't account for skipped commits as I > > understand it, where multiple commits are left at the end of the > > bisect, but in your script it doesn't look like you skip any. > > Hmmmm. I'm now working on adding the ability to skip commits, so this > would be a problem. Do you have any idea on how to deal with that? Not offhand, sorry :/ I'm not totally sure how bisect represents that state. -- D. Ben Knoble ``` ## Alejandro Colomar, 2026-10-03 17:50 Subject: Re: git-visualize(1) plumbing equivalent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: ``` Hi Ben, > Date: 2026-10-03 13:10:43-0400 > From: "D. Ben Knoble" > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 11:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > Date: 2026-10-03 09:45:17-0400 > > > From: "D. Ben Knoble" > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:13 AM Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > Having read the documentation for git-bisect(1), visualize reads several > > > > environment variables, and thus this code doesn't seem robust. What > > > > would be the plumbing version of the while-loop condition? > > > > > > > > git bisect visualize --oneline \ > > > > | wc -l \ > > > > | xargs -I{} test {} -gt 1; > > > > > > > > The goal is to know whether git-bisect(1) has found a commit yet or not, > > > > to stop looping. > > > > > > I think you are probably looking for the (size of the) set of commits > > > between bisect/bad and all the bisect/good-* refs. So you might need > > > to "git refs list" the good ones, and feed those as negated refs > > > alongside bisect/bad to rev-list? > > > > Yup, this seems to work: > > > > git refs list | grep refs/bisect/ | sed '/good/s/^/^/' | cut -f1 -d' ' | xargs git rev-list > > > > > > > > In the general case, that wouldn't account for skipped commits as I > > > understand it, where multiple commits are left at the end of the > > > bisect, but in your script it doesn't look like you skip any. > > > > Hmmmm. I'm now working on adding the ability to skip commits, so this > > would be a problem. Do you have any idea on how to deal with that? > > Not offhand, sorry :/ I'm not totally sure how bisect represents that state. Thanks anyway! I think this is getting hard enough, that it might be worth piping a heredocument into a mktemp(1) file within the script, and passing that to 'git bisect run'. Cheers, Alex -- ```