Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2017, #04; Wed, 19)

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Apr 22, 2017, 13:37 UTC
Message-ID: <a9685abc-50ad-3ee6-3384-0e043d205612@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD19DVqQLHBta74uLcFPwJaRUKF8Ppmnhct5ub=OkKSqCQ@mail.gmail.com>

Am 21.04.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Christian Couder:

> First bisect should ask you to test merge bases only if there are
> "good" commits that are not ancestors of the "bad" commit.

That's a tangent, but I have never understood why this needs to be so. Consider this:

     o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--B
    /           /
  -o--o--o--o--g--o--o--o--o--G

When I mark B as bad and G as good, why would g have to be tested first? This is exactly what I do when I bisect in Git history: I mark the latest commits on git-gui and gitk sub-histories as good, because I know they can't possibly be bad. (In my setup, these two histories are ahead of pu and next.)

-- Hannes