Re: [PATCH v10.1 7/7] bisect: allow any terms set by user

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Jun 29, 2015, 15:19 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqlhf2czk6.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD23RTCzrv8j8Jbcx5ajMUjgVsO3P5_Fiv3Vwx5uaPwXrw@mail.gmail.com>

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthieu Moy
> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>> bisect is all about finding the commit where a property has changed,
>
> That is your interpretation of this command. On the man page there is:
>
>     git-bisect - Find by binary search the change that introduced a bug
>
> So its stated purpose is to find the first "bad" commit. Not to find a fix.

This is a limitation of the current bisect, but the discussion is precisely about removing this limitation.

I still don't understand what "risk" we are taking by doing the bisection anyway. I can't imagine a case where we would harm the user by doing so.

I just tested with Mercurial, and looking for a fix instead of a regression just works:

$ hg bisect --good 4 $ hg bisect --bad 1 Testing changeset 2:d75a2d042c99 (3 changesets remaining, ~1 tests) 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved $ hg bisect --bad Testing changeset 3:9d27d9c02e28 (2 changesets remaining, ~1 tests) 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved $ hg bisect --bad The first good revision is: changeset: 4:1dd9bb959eb6 tag: tip user: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> date: Mon Jun 29 17:07:51 2015 +0200 summary: foo

I don't see anything wrong with this.

(OTOH, "hg bisect" does not accept revisions which aren't parent of each other)

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/