On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 25.07.2011 11:28, schrieb Jon Seymour: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > The fundamental preconditions of bisection are: that there is a single > event in the sequence, and that the effects of the event propagate to > the end of the sequence. More correctly: the fundamental pre-condition of a single round of bisection finding an event of interest is as you say. There is nothing that prevents multiple rounds of bisection being used, if required. So, in my examples, may produce a limit commit such that the graph between the limit and the tip contains two regions of good commits and two regions of bad commits. So, you keep applying rounds of bisection until the bad regions identified have no good commits. > > Junio explainded, that the second precondition is violated. Therefore, > you cannot apply git-bisect to find brokenness in a repository *in general*. > I never claimed that a single round of biseciton would be enough, in general. Only that it would be useful to be able to apply a bisection algorithm to broken repositories. It seems clear to me that bisection is a very useful tool for probling the extent of corruption in a broken repo. It is certainly not the only tool, may not work in all cases (broken commits) and may not be all you need. Anyway, I agree that Junio's suggestion (e.g. --no-checkout) is a better and more generally applicable than my original (--ignore-checkout-failure) suggestion. jon. -- 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