On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:25:08AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 02:09 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
>> Going upwards, from working to buggy revision, I treated FTBFS
>> (failing to build from source) commits as "bad" for git bisect. Going
>> from buggy revision downwards - to working one - I treated FTBFS
>> commits as "good" for git bisect.
>It's better not to mark such commits as good or bad at all. Either use
>git bisect skip or switch to a nearby commit that can be used to verify
>the problem being bisected manually.
Maybe it's better, but with git bisect skip I'd still be in testing
session - I tried that. I also tried skipping more (N - for N={1..4})
revisions with git reset --hard HEAD~N, but it was also pointless
then.
Judging from compilation errors, I made an assumption that it was
always the same error causing compilation failure for me. Now I have
narrowed down the list of possible commits to 46 and can start with
narrower boundaries - manageable even with git bisect skip (to
proove/contradict that all the commits in between are failing to
build).
And I'll try that on next possible occasion - possibly even today.
--
Jacek Politowski
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
