On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:09:20PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > But from what directory would you expect: > > > > git bisect run make > > > > to run from? If you use a GNU-ish layout with all of your code in > > "src/", > > In a vast majority of cases the layout remains constant during the whole > bisection. Agreed. But you need to think about what happens when it does not. I think marking the commit as untestable is probably best, with bisect barfing a reasonable second. Accidentally marking the commit as "bad" is probably the worst thing we could do. That would produce a subtly wrong bisection result. > > Maybe that commit should be considered indeterminate then? > > Why? If you're running an automated command, then it will probably fail, > yeah. I guess most people bisect manually though, so even in repositories > that do have this problem, there's someone who can test the given commit > anyway. If you're not doing "bisect run", then it is a non-issue, no? If you are bisecting by hand, then "git bisect good|bad" will delete your working directory, and probably your shell will start complaining, and an intelligent tester will see what happened. This is only a problem for automated bisection, which does not have such a tester. > > 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. > > At the very least, generally working with a caveat in corner cases seems to > be better than outright failing. To be clear: I think this is a good feature that will help a lot of people, and I don't think an uncommon corner case should prevent it from going into git. But I _do_ think we should consider what happens in the corner cases and at least fail gracefully, rather than produce subtly wrong results. -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