Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007 - 1:42 pm

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:

You're correct - "git bisect" will not always be able to find an exact 
half-way point, and I was wrong to imply that it will always be quite that 
close.

It's easily off by a few commits because of merges that make it harder to 
find a good bisection point, but it should never (practically) be off by 
quite as much as you saw. 

For example, I could expect that from 127 commits, it would go down to 70 
rather than 64. But not to 110 - not unless there are some *really* 
strange patterns with lots of criss-crossing merges.

And indeed, for me, using the same commit ID's as you used, I see a nice 
bisection to just about exactly half.


You really do want to use git-1.5.x these days.

It does look like 1.4.4.4 may have a bug, although I'm really surprised: 
we've certainly tweaked stuff in bisection, but I and others have used 
"git bisect" since long before the git-1.4 days, and it has always worked 
ok. So I wonder if it's something specific to that debian build.

Or possibly to the fact that you have some other dirty state (you might 
want to do a "git diff HEAD" to see what the changes are, and maybe a "git 
checkout -f" to get rid of any differences)


I'm surprised that debuan 


Ok, something deleted an empty file. Probably "make distclean". Our "make 
clean" is sometimes too aggressive, and we generally shouldn't have empty 
files.


but this one has actually been modified. To this:


And finally, 


That one also has been actually deleted. And "make distclean" doesn't do 
that. You have something else going on.

		Linus
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Sun Jun 17, 11:22 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Sun Jun 17, 12:58 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Sun Jun 17, 2:49 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Paul Mundt, (Sun Jun 17, 4:18 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Sun Jun 17, 5:10 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Paul Mundt, (Sun Jun 17, 5:25 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Sean, (Mon Jun 18, 12:01 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jun 18, 10:01 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Mon Jun 18, 11:12 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Mon Jun 18, 11:15 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jun 18, 11:35 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Mon Jun 18, 12:54 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jun 18, 1:42 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Daniel Barkalow, (Mon Jun 18, 3:30 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Mon Jun 18, 3:50 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jun 18, 3:57 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Tue Jun 19, 4:37 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Dave Jones, (Tue Jun 19, 4:44 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jun 19, 5:09 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Wang Zhenyu, (Tue Jun 19, 6:15 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Wang Zhenyu, (Tue Jun 19, 6:42 pm)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Wed Jun 20, 6:11 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Wed Jun 20, 6:22 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Wed Jun 20, 6:31 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Wed Jun 20, 6:58 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Carlo Wood, (Wed Jun 20, 7:02 am)
Re: 2.6.22-rc5 regression, Wang Zhenyu, (Wed Jun 20, 8:46 am)