Am 18.02.2017 um 00:21 schrieb Stephan Beyer:
On 02/17/2017 11:29 PM, Alex Hoffman wrote: * 7a9e952 (bisect bad) <BAD> |\ | * 671cec2 <BAD> <--- expected | |\ | * | 04c6f4b <BAD> <--- found * | | 3915157 <GOOD> |\ \ \ | | |/ | |/| | * | f4154e9 (bisect good) <GOOD> | * | 85855bf <BAD> | |/ * | f1a36f5 <BAD> |/ * 1b7fb88 <BAD> The <BAD> and <GOOD> markers are set by your definition of what good and what bad commits are. [...] In other words: bisect assumes that your repo is usually in a good state and you have a commit that changes it to a bad state. In your case you have a repo that is in a bad state and you have a commit that switches it to a good state and later you merge a bad-state branch and you have a bad state again. It is not made for that use-case, I think.
Correct. The assumption of bisection is that there is only one transition between GOOD and BAD. By violating that assumption, anything can happen.
-- Hannes