Re: git bisect problems/ideas

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2011, 09:04 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=A2Twepg3Jo_VYxtvghkhx6ixcpRH3332BoRQo@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DED602-0BA7-4462-AC00-1DDEEF83068C@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeurer@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeurer@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> First off, do you guys have an issue tracker?
>>
>> No, we don't. We use the mailing list.
>>
>
> Well that's amazing to me. How on Earth fo you manage stuff?

Well, bugs are usually fixed within days after they have been reported. Otherwise they are usually documented in the code or in the documentation or in the test suite (with test_expect_failure).

For the rest we rely on people remembering what happened and on people's mailing list searching skills ;-)

Show 6 quoted lines

>> If more people want it, yeah, we can create such a shortcut. But you
>> can also use a git alias for that.
>>
>
> Can you alias "git bisect stop", or would you have to alias "git
> bisect-stop"?

I think you have to alias "git bisect-stop".

I am not sure because when I use aliases I prefer to use shell aliases like:

alias gst='git status'

Show 25 quoted lines

>> Yeah, many people find it difficult to reverse the meaning of "bad"
>> and "good" when looking for a fix. There were some suggestions at some
>> points to do something about it. Some of the suggestions were to use
>> some aliases for "good" and "bad", but there was no agreement. Other
>> suggestions had a patch attached but the patch was not good enough or
>> something.
>>
>> Anyway, the restriction is that the "bad" commit cannot be an ancestor
>> of a "good" commit. But the "good" commits need not be all ancestors
>> of the "bad" commit. For example if you have a "master" branch and a
>> "dev" branch that was forked from the "master" branch at one point,
>> like that:
>>
>> A-B-C-D-E <-- master
>>     \F-G <-- dev
>>
>
> I don't understand how this can only be one way?  Isn't this symmetric?  In
> other words, how is it different from
>
> A-B-C-D-E <-- dev
>    \F-G <-- master
>
> as far as bisect is concerned? Or maybe I am not entirely clear on what you
> are saying.

Yes, it is symmetric, so we cannot just automatically reverse the meanning because there is no "after" or "before" relationship between "dev" and "master".

Best regards, Christian.