Re: git bisect bad @

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <r@artagnon.com>
Date: Jan 14, 2022, 08:04 UTC
Message-ID: <e90803fb-00a1-4575-9a8b-8f7fed7f5e6a@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <88899d16-5e3e-2bb2-07e9-59f7607c91a8@web.de>

René Scharfe wrote:

> Using the shell allows the bisect run command to be any shell command,
> not just some script.  E.g. you could bisect a build failure with just
> "git bisect run make".  Quite useful.

Ah, that's quite useful, yes. The problem of improving user experience with bisect is getting more and more hairy. May I suggest something tractable, albeit not too elegant, and certainly not perfect, in view of improving user experience in common use cases?

1. If argv[0] of the supplied command is found in $PATH, check it for executable permissions. Otherwise, error out. It's highly unlikely that the user meant a shell builtin, which would supersede the executable in $PATH.
2. If argv[0] is found in the current directory, prompt for "Did you mean ... [Y/n]?"
3. If checking on merge-base fails, improve the error message with "Perhaps your bisect script is broken?" and reset bisect automatically.

Warm regards, Ram