When not looking for a regression during a bisect but for a fix or a
change in another given property, it can be confusing to use 'good'
and 'bad'.

This patch introduce `git bisect new` and `git bisect old` as an
alternative to 'bad' and good': the commits which have a certain
property must be marked as `new` and the ones which do not as `old`.

The output will be the first commit after the change in the property.
During a new/old bisect session you cannot use bad/good commands and
vice-versa.

Some commands are still not available for old/new:
     * git rev-list --bisect does not treat the revs/bisect/new and
       revs/bisect/old-SHA1 files.

Old discussions:
        - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/86063
                introduced bisect fix unfixed to find fix.
        - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/182398
                discussion around bisect yes/no or old/new.
        - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/199758
                last discussion and reviews
New discussions:
        - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/271320
                ( v2 1/7-4/7 )
        - http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/271343
                ( v2 5/7-7/7 )

Signed-off-by: Antoine Delaite <antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
Signed-off-by: Louis Stuber <stub...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Duperray <valentin.duper...@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Franck Jonas <franck.jo...@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Lucien Kong <lucien.k...@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Nguy <thomas.n...@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Huynh Khoi Nguyen Nguyen 
<huynh-khoi-nguyen.ngu...@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr>
---
 Documentation/git-bisect.txt |   48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 bisect.c                     |   11 +++++++--
 git-bisect.sh                |   30 +++++++++++++++++--------
 t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh  |   38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
index 4cb52a7..3c3021a 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
@@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ on the subcommand:
 
  git bisect help
  git bisect start [--no-checkout] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<paths>...]
- git bisect bad [<rev>]
- git bisect good [<rev>...]
+ git bisect (bad|new) [<rev>]
+ git bisect (good|old) [<rev>...]
  git bisect skip [(<rev>|<range>)...]
  git bisect reset [<commit>]
  git bisect visualize
@@ -104,6 +104,35 @@ For example, `git bisect reset HEAD` will leave you on the 
current
 bisection commit and avoid switching commits at all, while `git bisect
 reset bisect/bad` will check out the first bad revision.
 
+
+Alternative terms: bisect new and bisect old
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If you are not at ease with the terms "bad" and "good", perhaps
+because you are looking for the commit that introduced a fix, you can
+alternatively use "new" and "old" instead.
+But note that you cannot mix "bad" and good" with "new" and "old".
+
+------------------------------------------------
+git bisect new [<rev>]
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Marks the commit as new, e.g. "the bug is no longer there", if you are looking
+for a commit that fixed a bug, or "the feature that used to work is now broken
+at this point", if you are looking for a commit that introduced a bug.
+It is the equivalent of "git bisect bad [<rev>]".
+
+------------------------------------------------
+git bisect old [<rev>...]
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Marks the commit as old, as the opposite of 'git bisect new'.
+It is the equivalent of "git bisect good [<rev>...]".
+
+You must run `git bisect start` without commits as argument and run
+`git bisect new <rev>`/`git bisect old <rev>...` after to add the
+commits.
+
 Bisect visualize
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
@@ -379,6 +408,21 @@ In this case, when 'git bisect run' finishes, bisect/bad 
will refer to a commit
 has at least one parent whose reachable graph is fully traversable in the sense
 required by 'git pack objects'.
 
+* Look for a fix instead of a regression in the code
++
+------------
+$ git bisect start
+$ git bisect new HEAD    # current commit is marked as new
+$ git bisect old HEAD~10 # the tenth commit from now is marked as old
+------------
++
+Let's consider the last commit has a given property, and that we are looking
+for the commit which introduced this property. For each commit the bisection
+guide us to, we will test if the property is present. If it is we will mark
+the commit as new with 'git bisect new', otherwise we will mark it as old.
+At the end of the bisect session, the result will be the first new commit (e.g
+the first one with the property).
+
 
 SEE ALSO
 --------
diff --git a/bisect.c b/bisect.c
index 2fc8a78..7492fdc 100644
--- a/bisect.c
+++ b/bisect.c
@@ -746,6 +746,11 @@ static void handle_bad_merge_base(void)
                                "This means the bug has been fixed "
                                "between %s and [%s].\n",
                                bad_hex, bad_hex, good_hex);
+               } else if (!strcmp(name_bad, "new")) {
+                       fprintf(stderr, "The merge base %s is new.\n"
+                               "The property has changed "
+                               "between %s and [%s].\n",
+                               bad_hex, bad_hex, good_hex);
                } else {
                        fprintf(stderr, "The merge base %s is %s.\n"
                                "This means the first commit marked %s is "
@@ -778,11 +783,11 @@ static void handle_skipped_merge_base(const unsigned char 
*mb)
 }
 
 /*
- * "check_merge_bases" checks that merge bases are not "bad".
+ * "check_merge_bases" checks that merge bases are not "bad" (or "new").
  *
- * - If one is "bad", it means the user assumed something wrong
+ * - If one is "bad" (or "new"), it means the user assumed something wrong
  * and we must exit with a non 0 error code.
- * - If one is "good", that's good, we have nothing to do.
+ * - If one is "good" (or "old"), that's good, we have nothing to do.
  * - If one is "skipped", we can't know but we should warn.
  * - If we don't know, we should check it out and ask the user to test.
  */
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
index 55b9ebd..a11ca06 100644
--- a/git-bisect.sh
+++ b/git-bisect.sh
@@ -1,14 +1,16 @@
 #!/bin/sh
 
-USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run]'
+USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|new|old|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run]'
 LONG_USAGE='git bisect help
        print this long help message.
 git bisect start [--no-checkout] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<pathspec>...]
        reset bisect state and start bisection.
-git bisect bad [<rev>]
-       mark <rev> a known-bad revision.
-git bisect good [<rev>...]
-       mark <rev>... known-good revisions.
+git bisect (bad|new) [<rev>]
+       mark <rev> a known-bad revision/
+               a revision after change in a given property.
+git bisect (good|old) [<rev>...]
+       mark <rev>... known-good revisions/
+               revisions before change in a given property.
 git bisect skip [(<rev>|<range>)...]
        mark <rev>... untestable revisions.
 git bisect next
@@ -288,7 +290,7 @@ bisect_next_check() {
                false
                ;;
        t,,"$NAME_GOOD")
-               # have bad but not good.  we could bisect although
+               # have bad (or new) but not good (or old).  we could bisect 
although
                # this is less optimum.
                eval_gettextln "Warning: bisecting only with a \$NAME_BAD 
commit." >&2
                if test -t 0
@@ -529,7 +531,7 @@ get_terms () {
 check_and_set_terms () {
        cmd="$1"
        case "$cmd" in
-       bad|good)
+       bad|good|new|old)
                if test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS" && test "$cmd" != 
"$NAME_BAD" && test "$cmd" != "$NAME_GOOD"
                then
                        die "$(eval_gettext "Invalid command: you're currently 
in a \$NAME_BAD/\$NAME_GOOD bisect.")"
@@ -543,14 +545,22 @@ check_and_set_terms () {
                        fi
                        NAME_BAD="bad"
                        NAME_GOOD="good" ;;
+               new|old)
+                       if ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS"
+                       then
+                               echo "new" >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS" &&
+                               echo "old" >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS"
+                       fi
+                       NAME_BAD="new"
+                       NAME_GOOD="old" ;;
                esac ;;
        esac
 }
 
 bisect_voc () {
        case "$1" in
-       bad) echo "bad" ;;
-       good) echo "good" ;;
+       bad) echo "bad|old" ;;
+       good) echo "good|new" ;;
        esac
 }
 
@@ -566,7 +576,7 @@ case "$#" in
                git bisect -h ;;
        start)
                bisect_start "$@" ;;
-       bad|good)
+       bad|good|new|old)
                bisect_state "$cmd" "$@" ;;
        skip)
                bisect_skip "$@" ;;
diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
index 9e2c203..2f2143b 100755
--- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
+++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
@@ -759,4 +759,42 @@ test_expect_success '"git bisect bad HEAD" behaves as "git 
bisect bad"' '
        git bisect reset
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'bisect starts with only one new' '
+       git bisect reset &&
+       git bisect start &&
+       git bisect new $HASH4 &&
+       git bisect next
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'bisect does not start with only one old' '
+       git bisect reset &&
+       git bisect start &&
+       git bisect old $HASH1 &&
+       test_must_fail git bisect next
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'bisect start with one new and old' '
+       git bisect reset &&
+       git bisect start &&
+       git bisect old $HASH1 &&
+       git bisect new $HASH4 &&
+       git bisect new &&
+       git bisect new >bisect_result &&
+       grep "$HASH2 is the first new commit" bisect_result &&
+       git bisect log > log_to_replay.txt &&
+       git bisect reset
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'bisect replay with old and new' '
+       git bisect replay log_to_replay.txt > bisect_result &&
+       grep "$HASH2 is the first new commit" bisect_result &&
+       git bisect reset
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'bisect cannot mix old/new and good/bad' '
+       git bisect start &&
+       git bisect bad $HASH4 &&
+       test_must_fail git bisect old $HASH1
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
1.7.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in

Reply via email to