From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 18:51:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bisect--helper: warn if we are assuming an unlikely pathspec
Message-ID: <YnF5vpcBCJftFdH+@chrisdown.name>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv8uo1mk6.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano writes:
>A model dialogue may go like this.
>
>    $ git bisect start -- bin/
>    info: bisect waiting for good and bad commits.
>    $ git bisect good master
>    info: bisect waiting for a bad commit, one good commit known.
>    $ git bisect good maint
>    info: bisect waiting for a bad commit, two good commits known.
>    $ git bisect bad next
>    Bisecting: ...
>
>Then the exchange for the lazy short-hand form of "bisect start"
>would fall out quite naturally.
>
>    $ git bisect start d93ff48803f0 -- v6.3
>    info: bisect waiting for a good commit, one bad commit known.
>
>For a bonus point, we may want to also say something on these
>"info:" lines that we were given a pathspec.
>
>It would also be a good idea to add a new subcommand "git bisect status"
>to recompute the state (i.e. what it is waiting for and what it
>already knows) when the user forgets, which can happen quite often.

Sounds good.

>With such a bonus feature, the exchange might go like this:
>
>    $ git bisect start seen
>    info: bisect waiting for a good commit, a bad commit known.
>    $ git reset --hard maint ;# choose an older point, hoping it is good.
>    $ make test
>    ... pages of output scrolls the "info:" out of window ...
>    $ git bisect status
>    info: bisect waiting for a good commit, a bad commit known.
>    $ git bisect bad maint
>    info: bisect waiting for a good commit, a bad commit known.
>    $ git reset --hard v1.0 ;# an even older point, hoping it is good.
>    $ make test
>    ... again pages of output ...
>    $ git bisect good v1.0
>    Bisecting ...
>
>Hmm?

I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else has any other feedback, and then 
I'll send a patch to that effect.

Thanks!