From: John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:18:08 GMT
Subject: Re: bisect run, was Re: More git bisect modes
Message-ID: <43d8ce650903050318g6ab81e6es9869b9f526c5eb24@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903051207480.6524@intel-tinevez-2-302>

2009/3/5 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> [...] personally I never felt the need for "run" to work without any bad
>> one, as the first few rounds would almost always end up to be a
>> debugging session of the run script for me, as in:
>>
>>       ... oh, somebody broke this somewhere ...
>>       ... write a validate script ...
>>       $ edit runme ; chmod +x runme
>>         $ ./runme
>>         ... yeah, it is broken and runme script detects breakage
>>         $ git checkout HEAD~200
>>         $ ./runme
>>         ... ok, it used to work here and runme exits Ok
>>         $ git bisect good
>>         $ git bisect bad @{-1}
>>         $ ./runme
>>         ... ok, runme script appears to be ok
>>         $ git bisect run ./runme
>
> That reminds me of a personal gripe with "bisect run": You cannot use it
> like this:
>
>        $ git bisect run 'make test'
>
> as it interprets 'make test' as a name of an executable.  That makes
> 'bisect run' rather less useful to me.

A very quick test seems to show that:

$ git bisect run make test

Works as you want.  Maybe a quick example of this could be added to
the man page.

>
> Ciao,
> Dscho
>
>