Re: [NON-TOY PATCH] git bisect: introduce 'fixed' and 'unfixed'

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> ...
>> It seems to me that your problem is that git-bisect requires the "good" 
>> revision to be older than the "bad" one.  If this requirement were 
>> removed, would there still be a need for "fixed" vs. "unfixed"?
>
> Nope.
>
> The thing that makes "fixed" and "bad" special is that _one_ commit 
> introduced that.

That was my initial reaction, and I actually was about to phrase it more
bluntly: you do not understand what "bisect" is.

But that was a reaction without thinking things through.  It may not be
what "git bisect" currently is, but the suggestion does not go against
what the underlying "git rev-list --bisect" is at all.  I think what
Michael is speculating is different, and it makes sense in its own way.

Instead of having a set of bisect/good-* refs and a single bisect-bad ref,
your "fixed and unfixed" mode could work quite differently.  By noticing
that the topology the user specified with initial good and bad have
ancient bad and recent good --- that is, "it used to be bad but now it is
good" --- you could instead use a set of bisect/bad-* refs and a single
bisect-good ref, and feed good and bad swapped to "rev-list --bisect" in
bisect_next().  That way, the labels given by visualize will match what
the user is doing automatically.

I said "it makes sense in its own way", because it is _quite_ different
from how git-bisect currently assumes, and restructuring git-bisect to
operate naturally in a way Michael describes would be a much larger
surgery with costs (including risks of bugs) associated with it, which
needs to be weighed in when judging that approach would actually make
sense.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html