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

From: Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:40:21 +0200

Andrew Garber <[email-masked]> writes:

>>> What is the point is finding manually a commit *on the same branch* when
>>> the tool can do that for you?
>
>> Seems to me that this is trying to cram two questions into one:
>>
>> A) where did branch foo diverge from branch bar and
>> B) which commit between that ancestor and bar did things break.

No. What I'm saying is that if you insist in not using bisect, you'll
probably have to answer these two questions separately.

> To find the answer to A, I generally just do this (using an alias):
>
> git log --graph --oneline --all
>
> It takes at most a couple of seconds... hardly what I'd call a manual
> process.

Suppose you have a bug in git.git that you see in pu, but not in next.
Try finding the common ancestor with your command, and see how long it
takes.

Yes, you'll be able to do it, but you still didn't tell us what was
wrong with

git bisect start
git bisect good origin/next
git bisect bad origin/pu
...

which is _way_ faster. And my example took git.git which isn't a very
large project, so real-life examples could be much worse.

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