Re: [PATCH v4] rev-list: refuse --first-parent combined with --bisect

> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
>>
>>> Hence, if you have a history that looks like this:
>>>
>>>
>>>   G...1---2---3---4---6---8---B
>>>                    \
>>>                     5---7---B
>>>
>>> it follows that 4 must also be "bad".  It used to be good long time
>>> ago somewhere before 1, and somewhere along way on the history,
>>> there was a single breakage event that we are hunting for.  That
>>> single event cannot be 5, 6, 7 or 8 because breakage at say 5 would
>>> not explain why the tip of the upper branch is broken---its breakage
>>> has no way to propagate there.  The breakage must have happened at 4
>>> or before that commit.
>>
>> Is it not worth at least confirming the assertion that 4 is bad before
>> proceding, or at least an option to confirm that in complex scenarios
>> where the fault may be devious.
>
> That raises a somewhat interesting tangent.
>
> Christian seems to be forever interested in bisect, so I'll add him
> to the Cc list ;-)
>
> There is no way to give multiple "bad" from the command line.  You
> can say "git bisect start rev rev rev..." but that gives only one
> bad and everything else is good.  And once you specify one of the
> above two bad ones (say, the child of 8), then we will not even
> offer the other one (i.e. the child of 7) as a candidate to be
> tested.  So in that sense, "confirm that 4 is bad before proceeding"
> is a moot point.
>
> However, you can say "git bisect bad <rev>" (and "git bisect good
> <rev>" for that matter) on a rev that is unrelated to what the
> current bisection state is.  E.g. after you mark the child of 8 as
> "bad", the bisected graph would become
>
>    G...1---2---3---4---6---8---B
>
> and you would be offered to test somewhere in the middle, say, 4.
> But it is perfectly OK for you to respond with "git bisect bad 7",
> if you know 7 is bad.
>
> I _think_ the current code blindly overwrites the "bad" pointer,
> making the bisection state into this graph if you do so.
>
>    G...1---2---3---4
>                     \
>                      5---B

> We certainly should be able to take advantage of the fact that the
> current "bad" commit (i.e. the child of 8) and the newly given "bad"
> commit (i.e. 7) are both known to be bad and mark 4 as "bad" instead
> when that happens, instead of doing the suboptimal thing the code
> currently does.