Re: Why can't I use git-bisect to find the first *good* commit?
> Suppose you have a bug in git.git that you see in pu, but not in next.
> Try finding the common ancestor with your command, and see how long it
> takes.
Show 10 quoted lines
> Yes, you'll be able to do it, but you still didn't tell us what was
> wrong with
>
> git bisect start
> git bisect good origin/next
> git bisect bad origin/pu
> ...
>
> which is _way_ faster. And my example took git.git which isn't a very
> large project, so real-life examples could be much worse.
But what about demerphq's example? (see below)
Show 13 quoted lines
> Bx--B--B--B*
> /
> --Gz--By--B--Gx--G*
>
> How does knowing that G* is good help you to find that Bx broke the
> code in the B* branch again?
>
> Presumably 'By' broke the G* branch which was then fixed by Gx and
> none of this information helps you at all identify that Bx broke the
> B* branch.
>
> Whereas a plain binary search on the B* branch would eventually find
> that Bx was responsible.
Andrew Garber <andrew@andrewgarber.com>