Re: git-bisect failure

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
 >
 > Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
 > >
 > > So it _might_
 > >  be possible that you said "current LDT" was bad when it was
 > >  actually good.  That is one possible explanation.
 > 
 > I agree.  Mea culpa.  Sorry.

 Well, this was actually something I hit when testign bisection too: it 
 _is_ very unforgiving of mistakes.

Yes.  That was my third attempt.  You basically _have_ to write down the
good/bad sequence as you go.  One slip and you've blown an hour's work.

 So the bisection algorithm may have done the right thing from a technical 
 standpoint, but I suspect it could be made to be a bit more forgiving, or 
 at least when somebody realizes that bisection didn't work right, we could 
 have the trail of good/bad markings to try to debug what happened...

Yup.  Simply keeping a little log file would suffice.