Greetings,
I have no idea how tree became "seeked", but would love to know how to "un-seek" it so I can proceed with a bisection. Help?
-Mike
threads / discuss / 12234
bisect: "won't bisect on seeked tree"
Subject: bisect: "won't bisect on seeked tree"
Shawn O. PearceRe: bisect: "won't bisect on seeked tree"
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> I have no idea how tree became "seeked", but would love to know how to > "un-seek" it so I can proceed with a bisection. Help?
I think you are already in the middle of a bisect.
Try "git bisect reset" first to get out of the current bisect before starting another one.
-- Shawn.
Re: bisect: "won't bisect on seeked tree"
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 00:33 -0500, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > I have no idea how tree became "seeked", but would love to know how to > > "un-seek" it so I can proceed with a bisection. Help? > > I think you are already in the middle of a bisect. > > Try "git bisect reset" first to get out of the current bisect before > starting another one.
It says "We are not bisecting".
-Mike
Shawn O. PearceRe: bisect: "won't bisect on seeked tree"
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 00:33 -0500, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > I have no idea how tree became "seeked", but would love to know how to > > > "un-seek" it so I can proceed with a bisection. Help? > > > > I think you are already in the middle of a bisect. > > > > Try "git bisect reset" first to get out of the current bisect before > > starting another one. > > It says "We are not bisecting".
Your repository is in a funny state. The file .git/BISECT_NAMES was removed but .git/head-name was not. Deleting .git/head-name should resolve the issue. But it would be interesting to know how the repository came into this state.
-- Shawn.
Re: bisect: "won't bisect on seeked tree"
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 00:43 -0500, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 00:33 -0500, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > I have no idea how tree became "seeked", but would love to know how to > > > > "un-seek" it so I can proceed with a bisection. Help? > > > > > > I think you are already in the middle of a bisect. > > > > > > Try "git bisect reset" first to get out of the current bisect before > > > starting another one. > > > > It says "We are not bisecting". > > Your repository is in a funny state. The file .git/BISECT_NAMES > was removed but .git/head-name was not. Deleting .git/head-name > should resolve the issue. But it would be interesting to know how > the repository came into this state.
Bingo, thanks!
There's only one git user here, so I have a good idea who to blame... but he (me) is claiming innocence. The content of head-name was "master" fwiw.
-Mike
Carl Worth[PATCH] Eliminate confusing "won't bisect on seeked tree" failure
This error message is very confusing---it doesn't tell the user anything about how to fix the situation. And the actual fix for the situation ("git bisect reset") does a checkout of a potentially random branch, (compared to what the user wants to be on for the bisect she is starting).
The simplest way to eliminate the confusion is to just make "git bisect start" do the cleanup itself. There's no significant loss of safety here since we already have a general safety in the form of the reflog.
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> --- On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:20:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > I have no idea how tree became "seeked", but would love to know how to > "un-seek" it so I can proceed with a bisection. Help?
At first I thought this just needed a better error message, (the original "seeked tree" terminology came from cogito where there was a seek command). But then it occurred to me that the error should just be eliminated altogether. And that saves the tool having to explain something it can just do itself.
git-bisect.sh | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh index 74715ed..1e532bc 100755 --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh @@ -75,7 +75,6 @@ bisect_start() { git checkout $branch || exit ;; refs/heads/*|$_x40) - [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ] && die "won't bisect on seeked tree" echo "${head#refs/heads/}" >"$GIT_DIR/head-name" ;; *) @@ -365,7 +364,6 @@ bisect_reset() { usage ;; esac if git checkout "$branch"; then - rm -f "$GIT_DIR/head-name" bisect_clean_state fi } @@ -377,6 +375,7 @@ bisect_clean_state() { do git update-ref -d $ref $hash done + rm -f "$GIT_DIR/head-name" rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES" rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN"
-- 1.5.4.1
Junio C HamanoRe: [PATCH] Eliminate confusing "won't bisect on seeked tree" failure
Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> This error message is very confusing---it doesn't tell the user
> anything about how to fix the situation. And the actual fix
> for the situation ("git bisect reset") does a checkout of a
> potentially random branch, (compared to what the user wants to
> be on for the bisect she is starting).The message itself refers to a Cogito "feature" and I suspect that removing the check and refusal would confuse Cogito. While I think the patch itself is Ok for us, we may want to wait a bit for a while. until Cogito users all die out.
Karl HasselströmRe: [PATCH] Eliminate confusing "won't bisect on seeked tree" failure
On 2008-02-22 09:18:03 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> While I think the patch itself is Ok for us, we may want to wait a > bit for a while. until Cogito users all die out.
Or until they stop use Cogito. Whichever happens first. ;-)
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
www.treskal.com/kalleCarl WorthRe: [PATCH] Eliminate confusing "won't bisect on seeked tree" failure
This error message is very confusing---it doesn't tell the user anything about how to fix the situation. And the actual fix for the situation ("git bisect reset") does a checkout of a potentially random branch, (compared to what the user wants to be on for the bisect she is starting).
The simplest way to eliminate the confusion is to just make "git bisect start" do the cleanup itself. There's no significant loss of safety here since we already have a general safety in the form of the reflog.
Note: We preserve the warning for any cogito users. We do this by switching from .git/head-name to .git/BISECT_START for the extra state, (which is a more descriptive name anyway).
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> --- On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:18:03 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The message itself refers to a Cogito "feature" and I suspect > that removing the check and refusal would confuse Cogito. While > I think the patch itself is Ok for us, we may want to wait a bit > for a while. until Cogito users all die out.
To avoid confusing cogito, this version preserves the error if there is a .git/head-name file around from cg-seek, and instead uses .git/BISECT_START for the git-bisect state.
Does this seem safe enough, Junio?
I suppose this does mean that cogito won't consider the tree to be in a "seeked" state during a git-bisect session, but hopefully that's not a big problem.
Any cogito users around that really care one way or the other on this stuff?
-Carl
git-bisect.sh | 16 ++++++++++------ 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh index 74715ed..4b13388 100755 --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh @@ -67,16 +67,18 @@ bisect_start() { die "Bad HEAD - I need a HEAD" case "$head" in refs/heads/bisect) - if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ]; then - branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/head-name"` + if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" ]; then + branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"` else branch=master fi git checkout $branch || exit ;; refs/heads/*|$_x40) + # This error message should only be triggered by cogito usage, + # and cogito users should understand it relates to cg-seek. [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ] && die "won't bisect on seeked tree" - echo "${head#refs/heads/}" >"$GIT_DIR/head-name" + echo "${head#refs/heads/}" >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" ;; *) die "Bad HEAD - strange symbolic ref" @@ -353,8 +355,8 @@ bisect_reset() { return } case "$#" in - 0) if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ]; then - branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/head-name"` + 0) if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" ]; then + branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"` else branch=master fi ;; @@ -365,7 +367,6 @@ bisect_reset() { usage ;; esac if git checkout "$branch"; then - rm -f "$GIT_DIR/head-name" bisect_clean_state fi } @@ -377,6 +378,9 @@ bisect_clean_state() { do git update-ref -d $ref $hash done + # Cleanup head-name if it got left by an old version of git-bisect + rm -f "$GIT_DIR/head-name" + rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES" rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" -- 1.5.4.1
Junio C HamanoRe: [PATCH] Eliminate confusing "won't bisect on seeked tree" failure
Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:
> Does this seem safe enough, Junio?
Neither the earlier one nor this one passes t6030.
Carl WorthRe: [PATCH] Eliminate confusing "won't bisect on seeked tree" failure
This error message is very confusing---it doesn't tell the user anything about how to fix the situation. And the actual fix for the situation ("git bisect reset") does a checkout of a potentially random branch, (compared to what the user wants to be on for the bisect she is starting).
The simplest way to eliminate the confusion is to just make "git bisect start" do the cleanup itself. There's no significant loss of safety here since we already have a general safety in the form of the reflog.
Note: We preserve the warning for any cogito users. We do this by switching from .git/head-name to .git/BISECT_START for the extra state, (which is a more descriptive name anyway).
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> --- On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:59:38 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Neither the earlier one nor this one passes t6030.
Thanks. Both versions were definitely broken, and two of the three failures were a good catch of the bug I had introduced.
The third failure was simply that the test needed to be updated to track the change from head-name to BISECT_START.
And a quick "git grep head-name" of the source suggests that no other stale uses of head-name remain, (the things left in git-bisect are intentional for cogito compatibility as described above, and the things in git-rebase all refer to $DOTEST/head-name which is distinct.
Third time's the charm by chance?
-Carl
git-bisect.sh | 14 +++++++++----- t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 2 +- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh index 74715ed..2c32d0b 100755 --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh @@ -67,16 +67,18 @@ bisect_start() { die "Bad HEAD - I need a HEAD" case "$head" in refs/heads/bisect) - if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ]; then - branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/head-name"` + if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" ]; then + branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"` else branch=master fi git checkout $branch || exit ;; refs/heads/*|$_x40) + # This error message should only be triggered by cogito usage, + # and cogito users should understand it relates to cg-seek. [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ] && die "won't bisect on seeked tree" - echo "${head#refs/heads/}" >"$GIT_DIR/head-name" + echo "${head#refs/heads/}" >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" ;; *) die "Bad HEAD - strange symbolic ref" @@ -353,8 +355,8 @@ bisect_reset() { return } case "$#" in - 0) if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" ]; then - branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/head-name"` + 0) if [ -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" ]; then + branch=`cat "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"` else branch=master fi ;; @@ -365,7 +367,9 @@ bisect_reset() { usage ;; esac if git checkout "$branch"; then + # Cleanup head-name if it got left by an old version of git-bisect rm -f "$GIT_DIR/head-name" + rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" bisect_clean_state fi } diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh index ec71123..4908e87 100755 --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect starting with a detached HEAD' ' git checkout master^ && HEAD=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD) && git bisect start && - test $HEAD = $(cat .git/head-name) && + test $HEAD = $(cat .git/BISECT_START) && git bisect reset && test $HEAD = $(git rev-parse --verify HEAD)
-- 1.5.4.1