Re: git-bisect annoyances

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> wrote:

> >  #
> >  # So perhaps this new, unnamed branch is what is causing the trouble?
> >  # Lets try a specific branch then:
> >  #
> >
> >  dione:~/linux-tmp4> git-checkout master
> >  Previous HEAD position was 4991408... Linux 2.6.24
> >  Switched to branch "master"
> >
> >  dione:~/linux-tmp4> git-bisect start
> >  won't bisect on seeked tree
> 
> This seems to work for me with git 1.5.5 on the git tree:

> What git version do you have ?

git-core-1.5.4.3-2.fc8, like for the previous report.

and it worked for me too in a later tree - so the condition seems 
transient.

> >  dione:~/linux-tmp4> git-bisect good v2.6.24 bad HEAD
> >  dione:~/linux-tmp4>
> 
> This is really bad, because, as you can see from the man page or "git 
> bisect -h" (see also the patch I just sent), "git bisect good" can 
> take many known good revisions:
> 
> git bisect good [<rev>...]
>         mark <rev>... known-good revisions.
> 
> So you marked also "bad" and HEAD as "good".
> 
> This is really strange, because here I get for example:
> 
> $ git-bisect good bad HEAD
> Bad rev input: bad HEAD
> 
> So you must have something tagged as "bad" or have a "bad" branch, and 
> that's why the command works for you but does the wrong thing.

no, there are no 'bad' braches or revisions.

and ... if "git-bisect good X bad Y" is invalid syntax it should be 
detected by the tool ... I did not think up that syntax myself, i think 
i saw it somewhere else mentioned by someone and found it logical. 
Weird. Generally i do use the separate commands though.

> >  dione:~/linux-tmp5> git-bisect visualize
> >  You need to give me at least one good and one bad revisions.
> >  (You can use "git bisect bad" and "git bisect good" for that.)
> >  dione:~/linux-tmp5> git bisect bad HEAD
> >  dione:~/linux-tmp5> git bisect good v2.6.24
> >  Bisecting: -1 revisions left to test after this
> >  [eb36f4fc019835cecf0788907f6cab774508087b] fix oops on rmmod capidrv
> 
> That's much better but you didn't "reset" or "start" again before 
> giving it correctly the good and bad revs, so there are still some 
> wrong left over from your previous start above.
> 
> >  #
> >  # -1 revisions left to test? Ouch ...
> >  #
> >  # But why did "git bisect" make a difference to "git-bisect" ?
> 
> It should not have made any difference.

it probably didnt - i was just grasping at straws because there was no 
reassuring feedback about what happened so my confidence about my 
_assumptions_ what was happening in the background gradually eroded so i 
went in larger and larger circles around the problem dropping more and 
more assumptions and re-checking them.

But i pasted this directly from that session so the "-1" is definitely 
not imaginery and it is anomalous.

	Ingo