On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:11:56 +0200 Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger: > > > Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why > > > Linus > > > rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next > > > > I agree, bisecting with subtree merges is not pleasant at all. > > That's why I chose the rebase method until now. > > I don't see what is un-pleasant, if we start a bisect what we expect is to > find the commit introducing the issue, bisect is able to do it even on large > tree with a lot of merges. Moreover, the probability the issue will be > searched in a specific section within its own subtree is high which also means > locally it will be linear, is not it equivalent to the actual situation? > > > Adrien mentioned some drawbacks with the rebase method. > > Ferruh mentioned some drawbacks and some advantages of rebase. > > Stephen mentioned another advantage of rebase. > > Such decisions are really difficult. > > One thing is sure: there will be always someone unhappy, > > no matter the decision :) > > > > When we want to take such decision or re-consider it, > > we ask the techboard to vote... A recent git bisect gives an example of the problem. I needed to bisect between two daily versions of linux-next. Linux-next is intentionally not a serial tree, it is recreated every day. The big bisect wanted to go through 10,000 commits and back track from 4.14-rc1 into 4.13-rc5 to get down into some subtree. On upstream tree it nevers goes back into ancient history.
