Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:09:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> As to the approach, I suspect that it would be far better if it made
>> workable with cd_to_toplevel at the beginning, instead of saying
>> SUBDIRECTORY_OK.
>>
>> After all, the current directory may disappear during the course of
>> bisection, upon checking out a revision that did not have the directory
>> you started your bisection from.
>
> But from what directory would you expect:
>
> git bisect run make
My usual way to enlighten somebody is by forcing him/her to think the
consequences, but because you did the thinking for the OP in this thread
instead, it didn't work. Makes me somewhat sad ;-<.
> If we cd_to_toplevel, we can remember the prefix that we started from
> and cd to it before running the user's command, but there is no
> guarantee that it actually exists. Maybe that commit should be
> considered indeterminate then?
Yeah that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.
> I dunno. I haven't thought that hard about it. But I don't think it's
> quite as simple as just telling bisect it's OK to run from a subdir.
Absolutely. Saying SUBDIRECTORY_OK without thinking about the consequence
through is a good discussion starter but is not a good patch.
Also didn't we make bisect workable in a bare repository recently? So the
start-up sequence has to be something more elaborate like...
. git-sh-setup
if we are in a bare repository
then
: we are happy...nothing funky needs to be done
elif we are not in a working tree
barf
elif we are not at the top
prefix=$(git rev-parse --show-prefix)
cd_to_toplevel
fi
and then inside bisect_next() you would check if $prefix exists, and go
there to run bisect--helper (or fail to go there and say "cannot test").
--
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