On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Alex Hoffman <s...@gal.ro> wrote: >> But this is not how Git works. Git computes graph differences, i.e., it >> subtracts from the commits reachable from v.bad those that are reachable >> from v.good. This leaves more than just those on some path from v.good to >> v.bad. And it should work this way. Consider this history: >> >> --o--o--o--G--X >> \ \ >> x--x--x--x--X--B-- >> >> When you find B bad and G good, than any one of the x or X may have >> introduced the breakage, not just one of the X. >> > > Thank you for clarifying how git bisect works. How did you find that > out? Did you check the source code? If that is not documented in the > man page may be it worth documenting it in order to avoid future > confusion for other users.
At the end of the git-bisect man page (in the SEE ALSO section) there is a link to https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt which has a lot of details about how bisect works. > Let's consider your example with distinct names for nodes: > > --o1--o2--o3--G--X1 > \ \ > x1--x2--x3--x4--X1--B-- > > It makes sense that git bisect is expecting a single transition, as > this is a precondition for a binary search to work. My definition of > "the transition" is a commit with at least one of its parents as a > good version, but the commit itself a bad version. What if a commit C has one good parent A and one bad parent B? Isn't it more likely that the first bad commit is B instead of C? > I hope we agree > that git bisect's mission is to search for this transition (as I > suppose that most of people need such a functionality from git, if not > exactly from git bisect). The goal is to find the first bad commit, which is a commit that has only good parents. > How could be x1 or x3 be the transition, if > chances are that o1 is not a good version? As o1 is an ancestor of G, then o1 is considered good by the bisect algorithm. If it was bad, it would means that there is a transition from bad to good between o1 and G. But when a good commit is an ancestor of the bad commit, git bisect makes the assumption that there is no transition from bad to good in the graph. > Of course it would make > sense to me if bisect would check o1 whether good and only then to > check also x1-x3, but this is not what git makes (at least not in my > initial example). > > If you consider that git bisect's mission is different from finding > the transition, could you please explain what exact commit git bisect > is supposed to return (ideally with terms from the graph theory) and > when it makes sense to return that? Because I do not see any sense in > looking in the path x1-x3 without knowing that those commits may be a > transition. I hope it makes sense with the above explanations. >> Oh, IMO git bisect was well thought through. If it considered just paths >> from good to bad, it would not given the correct answer. See the example >> history above. Bisect authors would not have deemed that sufficiently good > > You definitely convinced me that git MUST search more than only in the > paths between good and bad commits, as the good commit G does not have > to be the first good commit (thank you for that). My problem/confusion > is that it returns something that does not make sense to me, because > it does not make sure it returns a transition. git bisect makes some assumptions that are true most of the time, so in practice it works well most of the time.
