Hi Christian, On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Christian Couder wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > (with all associated problems I reported earlier, as you apply some > > patches on top of really ancient commits and bisect wants to test all > > merge bases first) > > First bisect should ask you to test merge bases only if there are > "good" commits that are not ancestors of the "bad" commit. Please note that this is a stateless job. The only "state" I have is the branch name. So when something goes wrong, I have *no* indicator what is a known good state. The strategy I implemented was to use knowledge about the branches and their relations. So when there is a bug in `pu`, the script first tests whether the same test passes in `next`. And if it does, that is my known-good state. In the meantime, I cheat and mark all merge-bases as known-good, too. But that is by no means a correct assumption: sometimes Junio decides to base a patch on top of a really ancient commit, one that may be broken on Windows. So there you are, I cannot win, I just tried to implement something that works reasonably well, most of the time. It still takes way too long. > Second yeah there is probably an old bug in bisect there. In theory in > most cases bisect should ask you to test only one merge base, as: > > - if the merge base is "bad", it means that the bug has been fixed > between the merge base and your "good" commit, and bisecting will > stop, > - if the merge base is "good", it means that all the merge bases that > are ancestor of this merge base are also good, so there is no need to > test them That is not necessarily correct. If there are two merge bases, one may be broken, and then that one is the first bad commit. > > because the required time *definitely* would let Travis time out all > > the time. Those bisect results are even less visible than the Travis > > results, see e.g. > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/2e3a8b9035a#commitcomment-21836854. > > Nice that they exists though! Yeah, well, it took enough of my time to implement, too ;-) Ciao, Dscho