Re: bisect help

From: Martin Hicks <mort@bork.org>
Date: Jun 27, 2006, 22:59 UTC
Message-ID: <20060627225944.GB16658@bork.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vu0666x2r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Since 'test' is a throwaway branch anyway, might it not make sense to
> > clone master to test and then rebase satadev onto it? Thus you would end
> > up with the linear history:
> >   o---o---o---o---o---o---o test (satadev')
> >   |           |
> > 2.6.17      master
> >
> > You know that master works and satadev' doesn't, and the bisection is
> > simple. After you find that bug, you can throw away the test branch.
> 
> I've considered suggesting it before looking at what is in
> satadev.  It is merged up in the Linus head right now, so you
> are talking about really _huge_ changes that are not yours and
> with a lot of merges.
> 
> It usually is much easier to rebase your own code than other's.
> 
> BTW, I really hate MUA's that does Mail-Followup-To to somebody
> else.  This message for example would not help Martin more than
> it would help you, but your MUA somehow redirected it to him.

I think the rebase idea is going to be painful. There are a *lot* of changesets in between 2.6.17 and satadev, due to the post-2.6.17 devel cycle opening.

I rebasing quickly, but it would require a bit of merging. I'll try tomorrow to see how bad it really is.

Thank you both for the ideas. I think I've got enough information now to continue.

mh

-- 
Martin Hicks || mort@bork.org || PGP/GnuPG: 0x4C7F2BEE