Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Stern wrote:
>>>
>>> > Tracking down regressions. Bisection isn't perfect. Suppose a
>>> > bisection run ends up saying that B is the first bad commit. It's easy
>>> > enough to build B and test it, to verify that it really is bad.
>>> >
>>> > But to be sure that B introduced the fault, it would help to find the
>>> > latest commit that doesn't include B's changes -- that is, the latest
>>> > commit that B isn't reachable from (or the maximal elements in the set
>>> > of all such commits).
>>>
>>> Isn't that B^ (or B^ and B^2, if B is a merge)?
>>
>> No. Here's a simple example:
>>
>> Y
>> /
>> /
>> X--B
>>
>> In this diagram, X = B^. But B isn't reachable from either X or Y,
>> whereas it is reachable from one of X's children (namely Y).
> ...
>
> Why do you say B is reachable from Y?
>
> If you mean that B is a merge between X and Y, then that is already
> covered by what Jonathan wrote "(or B^ and B^2 if B is a merge)".
>
> X----Y
> \ \
> .----B
> ...
No, that cannot be what you meant. I was confused. The above
picture does not make B reachable from Y (it is the other way
around: B reaches Y). The topology where B isn't reachable from
either X or Y and is reachable from Y would be
X---Y i.e. B = Y^2, X = Y^1 = B^1
\ /
B
If B is broken, and X is not, then Y would be contaminated by the
breakage B introduces relative to X, unless Y is an evil merge and
fixed that breakage while merging.
In any case, even if Y is found to be broken, its parent B is
already broken, so that does not place the blame on Y, does it?
Still confused why you feel Y is any significant...
--
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