Re: Feature request: git bisect merge to usable base

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 4, 2016, 22:38 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfuydm0lr.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV_JAEbuU3v+V352_8PVyaB1noGQAfJG+HVVanVpUbRZw@mail.gmail.com>

Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Anyway, the idea of merging test commits up to some lowest common
> denominator seems generally useful to me, and the idea of specifying a
> 'prepare the checked-out tree' (as you suggested, where 'git merge
> --no-commit whatever' would be specified) would also be handy, and
> both of these are useful even in cases where git bisect run isn't
> being used.

Yes, I didn't mean to say "bisect run" is always great. What I was hinting at was that even if you are _not_ using "bisect run" (which almost always _requires_ you to write a small script that does the test and says yes/no), once you start working on a project that is sufficiently complex (like bisecting a regression in the Linux kernel), your procedure to build and test a single revision becomes complex enough that it is worth to write and use a small script for a single step _anyway_. And with that in mind, "how do I prepare the checked-out tree for building and testing" can be part of that script.

Which in turn means there is nothing to add to "bisect", not even the "--fixup my_fixup_script" I alluded to, let alone "--merge-to" that is way too specific to the case you happened to have had before you sent your message.