On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:25:21PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:12:49PM -0400, Andrew Garber wrote: > > > But what about demerphq's example? (see below) > > > > > Bx--B--B--B* > > > / > > > --Gz--By--B--Gx--G* > > > > > > How does knowing that G* is good help you to find that Bx broke the > > > code in the B* branch again? > > > > > > Presumably 'By' broke the G* branch which was then fixed by Gx and > > > none of this information helps you at all identify that Bx broke the > > > B* branch. > > > > > > Whereas a plain binary search on the B* branch would eventually find > > > that Bx was responsible. > > If you feed bisect a history where the bug flips off and on between good > and bad commits, you aren't necessarily going to get the answer you > want. But that has nothing to do with the history shape; it is a problem > in a linear history like this, too: > > --G--Bx--B--G--G--By--B Actually, scratch what I said. I misread his graph. The fix has not yet been cherry-picked, it just exists on the other branch. So there is no flipping. But as Matthieu explained in another response, there is still value in bisecting that graph. -Peff -- 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