Re: Why can't I use git-bisect to find the first *good* commit?

Andrew Garber [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Then which commit do you specify as "good"?

Any ancestral commit *on the same branch* which is know to be working.

What is the point is finding manually a commit *on the same branch* when
the tool can do that for you? You don't know how old the breakage is, so
finding the first good commit will take some time. Knowing that the
other branch is good gives you a hint that the common ancestor between
branches should be good, so a good start would be to find the common
ancestor.

But again, why would you insist in doing that manually?

Isn't the whole point of git bisect is to do binary search through
time?

No. Bisect does a search through a DAG. And that is the whole point of
bisect: doing a binary search through time is something you could do
manually. That would be less convenient, but still workable. git bisect
is far more clever, and does something you could hardly do manually, or
at least not without getting headaches.

Perhaps you could give a concrete example of where you could use it
for multiple branches simultaneously?

Well, see my previous email.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/