Hi Tiago, On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Tiago Botelho wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Christian Couder > <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Harald Nordgren > > <haraldnordgren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think it looks similar. But if I'm reading that thread correctly > >> then there was never a patch created, right? > > > > (It is customary on this mailing list to reply after the sentences we > > reply to. We don't "top post".) > > > > On the GSoC idea pages (like https://git.github.io/SoC-2018-Ideas/) we > > have been suggesting "Implement git bisect --first-parent" and there > > are the following related links: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20150304053333.GA9584@xxxxxxxx/ > > https://public-inbox.org/git/4D3CDDF9.6080405@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Tiago in Cc also tried at a recent London hackathon to implement it > > and came up with the following: > > > > https://github.com/tiagonbotelho/git/pull/1/files > > > > I tried to help him by reworking his commit in the following branch: > > > > https://github.com/chriscool/git/commits/myfirstparent > > Thank you for the cc Christian, I’ve been quite busy and was not able > to work on the PR for quite some time. > > I intended to pick it back up again next week. If it is ok with Harald > I would love to finish the PR that I started, > since it is quite close to being finished (I think it was just specs > missing if I am not mistaken). That looks promising. Just like I suggested to Harald in another reply [*1*] on this thread, you probably want to use `int flags` instead, and turn `find_all` into BISECT_FIND_ALL in a preparatory commit. Also, you will definitely want to add a test. Again, my reply to Harald [*1*] should give you a head start there... You will want to imitate the test case I outlined there, maybe something like: # A - B - C - F # \ \ / \ # D - E - G - H [... 'setup' as in my mail to Harald ...] test_expect_success '--first-parent' ' write_script find-e.sh <<-\EOF && case "$(git show --format=%s -s)" in B|C|F) ;; # first parent lineage: okay *) git show -s --oneline HEAD >unexpected;; esac # detect whether we are "before" or "after" E test ! -f E.t EOF git bisect start --first-parent HEAD A && git bisect run ./find-e.sh >actual && test_path_is_missing unexpected && grep "$(git rev-parse F) is the first bad commit" actual ' Also, Tiago, reading through your patch (as on chriscool/git; do you have your own fork? That would make it much easier to collaborate with you by offering PRs), it looks more straight-forward than editing the commit_list after the fact and adding magic weights ;-) Except for one thing. I wonder why `bisect_next_all()` does not set revs.first_parent_only after calling `bisect_rev_setup()`? You would still need the changes in `count_distance()`, as it performs its own commit graph traversal, but there is no need to enumerate too many commits in the first place, right? Harald, maybe --merges-only can be implemented on top of --first-parent, with the `int flags` change I suggested? Ciao, Johannes Footnote *1*: https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1804121143120.65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
