Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matthieu Moy > <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> bisect is all about finding the commit where a property has changed, > > That is your interpretation of this command. On the man page there is: > > git-bisect - Find by binary search the change that introduced a bug > > So its stated purpose is to find the first "bad" commit. Not to find a fix. This is a limitation of the current bisect, but the discussion is precisely about removing this limitation. I still don't understand what "risk" we are taking by doing the bisection anyway. I can't imagine a case where we would harm the user by doing so. I just tested with Mercurial, and looking for a fix instead of a regression just works: $ hg bisect --good 4 $ hg bisect --bad 1 Testing changeset 2:d75a2d042c99 (3 changesets remaining, ~1 tests) 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved $ hg bisect --bad Testing changeset 3:9d27d9c02e28 (2 changesets remaining, ~1 tests) 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved $ hg bisect --bad The first good revision is: changeset: 4:1dd9bb959eb6 tag: tip user: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxx> date: Mon Jun 29 17:07:51 2015 +0200 summary: foo I don't see anything wrong with this. (OTOH, "hg bisect" does not accept revisions which aren't parent of each other) -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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