Re: [RFC] Add bad-branch-first option for git-bisect

> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I am not opposed to an option to bisect on the first parents of the
>> bad commit only. And after a very fast look at your patch it seems to
>> be what it does. By the way Avery Pennarun's gitbuilder
>> (https://github.com/apenwarr/gitbuilder) does the same thing. So I
>> know some people are interested in such a feature.
> Just some notes on gitbuilder's algorithm, since I haven't spent the
> time to fully understand Shuang's proposal.
>
> I do understand at least one of his concerns, that is, that people
> like to do a lot of "messy" development on a branch, and when the
> branch is done, merge the whole messy branch into the "mainline".  The
> messy branch would then have a lot of commits that break a lot of
> things before fixing them again later.
>
> In a corporate environment, this method allows people to work all day,
> make frequent commits, pull from other branches at will, and never
> risk their lives by doing poorly-educated rebases.  It works pretty
> well *until* you try to bisect, at which time all these messy commits
> start to bite you.
>
> gitbuilder's bisection is a total hack around this situation, although
> it happens to work perfectly in the workflow it was designed for, thus
> making me feel clever.
>
> Basically, we push/fetch *all* the branches from *everybody* into a
> single repo, and build all of them as frequently as we can.  If you
> think about it, if you have all the branches that someone might have
> pulled/merged from, then you don't have to think of the git history as
> a whole complicated DAG; you can just think of it as a whole bunch of
> separate chunks of linear history.  Moreover, as long as people are
> careful to only pull from a branch when that branch is passing all
> tests - which you can easily see by looking at the gitbuilder console
> - then playing inside each of these chunks of linear history can help
> you figure out where particular bugs were introduced during "messy"
> branches.
>
> It also allows you a nice separation of concerns.  The owner of the
> mainline branch (the "integration manager" person) only really cares
> about which branch they merged that caused a problem, because that
> person doesn't want to fix bugs, he/she simply wants to know who owns
> the failing branch, so that person can fix *their* bug and their
> branch will merge without breaking things.
>
> So this is why gitbuilder uses "git rev-list --first-parent" during
> its "fake bisection" operation: because a different person is
> responsible for each "linear chunk" of history.
>
> Note that you have to use --no-ff when merging if you want this to
> work reliably.  But the build manager person can just remember to do
> that.  Combining --no-ff and --ff-only (which sound mutually exclusive
> but aren't) is a way to be extra specially sure.
>
> Now, if you aren't using gitbuilder, what we want from "bisection" is
> not quite the same, but let's imagine that you at least have a similar
> setup, where people *only* ever merge into the mainline by using
> --no-ff.  In that case, you'd like a bisect operation that *starts* by
> using --first-parent, which will tell you which merge caused the
> problem.  After that, you might want to bisect into the branch.
>
> (I don't actually remember if 'git bisect' understands --first-parent
> correctly.  gitbuilder doesn't exactly bisect either, but that's
> another story and not relevant right now.)
>
> I can actually imagine that there are many more projects that do what
> I'm talking about - "messy" branches that get broken and fixed over
> time, then merge into a "clean" mainline - than projects (like the
> kernel and git.git) that try to keep all branches clean at all times.
> Thus, I could see some argument that a "--first-parents first"
> bisection would actually help out a lot of people, and maybe even
> deserves to be the default.
>
> I don't really care though, I just use gitbuilder :)
>
> Have fun,
>
> Avery