On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Eric Kow <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for this, Jason, > > It's occurred to me that we would be much more likely to make progress > if we gave ourselves "permission" to implement bisect instead of the > much cooler Delta Debugging approach (due to my lack of understanding, I > can only presume it's cooler). > > So I've split the ticket: > * http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1208 - trackdown --bisect > A very *easy* bug that would catch us up nicely > * http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1638 - trackdown with delta debugging >
I think this is wise. > > Do we really care about order? > I'm not sure. My reason for suggesting it was 1) to cut down the search space, 2) I was thinking you'd really only need to check sets of patches that have existed between invocations of darcs. Certainly the ordering of patches shouldn't matter, but the set of patches does matter. > > I suppose I ought to just go away and read the paper for a while. > It's a good read. Just understanding the clever tricks they implemented should give you a bit more insight into doing bisection searches when debugging manually. Thanks for creating the bug tickets! Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
