On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Put another way: "bad" is generally more trustworthy (because you > actively saw the bug),
Makes sense, but ... > while a "good" _before_ a subsequent bad is > also trustworthy (because if the "good" kernel contained the bug and > you should have marked it bad, we'd then go on to test all the commits > that were *not* the bug, so we'd never see a "bad" kernel again). wouldn't marking a bad commit "good" cause you to not see a *good* kernel again? Marking it "good" would seem push the search away from the bug toward the current "bad" commit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
