From: Andrew Morton Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:13:43 GMT Subject: Re: git-bisect failure Message-ID: <20050910141343.578649c7.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > So it _might_ > > > be possible that you said "current LDT" was bad when it was > > > actually good. That is one possible explanation. > > > > I agree. Mea culpa. Sorry. > > Well, this was actually something I hit when testign bisection too: it > _is_ very unforgiving of mistakes. Yes. That was my third attempt. You basically _have_ to write down the good/bad sequence as you go. One slip and you've blown an hour's work. > So the bisection algorithm may have done the right thing from a technical > standpoint, but I suspect it could be made to be a bit more forgiving, or > at least when somebody realizes that bisection didn't work right, we could > have the trail of good/bad markings to try to debug what happened... Yup. Simply keeping a little log file would suffice.