Comment by jerf
6 days ago
"git bisect" is why I maintain the discipline that all commits to the "real" branch, however you define that term, should all individually build and pass all (known-at-the-time) tests and generally be deployable in the sense that they would "work" to the best of your knowledge, even if you do not actually want to deploy that literal release. I use this as my #1 principle, above "I should be able to see every keystroke ever written" or "I want every last 'Fixes.' commit" that is sometimes advocated for here, because those principles make bisect useless.
The thing is, I don't even bisect that often... the discipline necessary to maintain that in your source code heavily overlaps with the disciplines to prevent code regression and bugs in the first place, but when I do finally use it, it can pay for itself in literally one shot once a year, because we get bisect out for the biggest, most mysterious bugs, the ones that I know from experience can involve devs staring at code for potentially weeks, and while I'm yet to have a bisect that points at a one-line commit, I've definitely had it hand us multiple-day's-worth of clue in one shot.
If I was maintaining that discipline just for bisect we might quibble with the cost/benefits, but since there's a lot of other reasons to maintain that discipline anyhow, it's a big win for those sorts of disciplines.
Sometimes you'll find a repo where that isn't true. Fortunately, git bisect has a way to deal with failed builds, etc: three-value logic. The test program that git bisect runs can return an exit value that means that the failure didn't happen, a different value that means that it did, or a third that means that it neither failed nor succeeded. I wrote up an example here:
https://speechcode.com/blog/git-bisect
Very handy! I forgot about `git bisect skip`.
I do bisecting almost as a last resort. I've used it when all else fails only a few times. Especially as I've never worked on code where it was very easy to just build and deploy a working debug system from a random past commit.
Edit to add: I will study old diffs when there is a bug, particularly for bugs that seem correlated with a new release. Asking "what has changed since this used to work?" often leads to an obvious cause or at least helps narrow where to look. Also asking the person who made those changes for help looking at the bug can be useful, as the code may be more fresh in their mind than in yours.
> why I maintain the discipline that all commits to the "real" branch, however you define that term, should all individually build and pass all (known-at-the-time) tests and generally be deployable in the sense that they would "work" to the best of your knowledge, even if you do not actually want to deploy that literal release
You’re spot on.
However it’s clearly a missing feature that Git/Mercurial can’t tag diffs as “passes” or “bisectsble”.
This is especially annoying when you want to merge a stack of commits and the top passes all tests but the middle does not. It’s a monumental and valueless waste of time to fix the middle of the stack. But it’s required if you want to maintain bisectability.
It’s very annoying and wasteful. :(
This is why we use squash like here https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/squas...
As someone who doesn't like to see history lost via "rebase" and "squashing" branches, I have had to think through some of these things, since my personal preferences are often trampled on by company policy.
I have only been in one place where "rebase" is used regularly, and now that I'm a little more familiar with it, I don't mind using it to bring in changes from a parent branch into a working branch, if the working branch hasn't been pushed to origin. It still weirds me out somewhat, and I don't see why a simple merge can't just be the preferred way.-
I have, however, seen "squashing" regularly (and my current position uses it as well as rebasing) -- and I don't particularly like it, because sometimes I put in notes and trials that get "lost" as the task progresses, but nonetheless might be helpful for future work. While it's often standard to delete "squashed" branches, I cannot help but think that, for history-minded folks like me, a good compromise would be to "squash and keep" -- so that the individual commits don't pollute the parent branch, while the details are kept around for anyone needing to review them.
Having said that, I've never been in a position where I felt like I need to "forcibly" push for my preferences. I just figure I might as well just "go with the flow", even if a tiny bit of me dies every time I squash or rebase something, or delete a branch upon merging!
3 replies →
I explicitly don’t want squash. The commits are still worth keeping separate. There’s lots of distinct pieces of work. But sometimes you break something and fix it later. Or you add something new but support different environments/platforms later.
4 replies →
git bisect supports --first-parent, no need to squash if you just merge.
If there's a way to identify those incomplete commits, git bisect does support "skip" - a commit that's neither good nor bad, just ignored.
Can we use git trailers for this? Something like "commit: incomplete" in the commit message.
Could you not use --first-parent option to test only at the merge-points?
Same. Every branch apart from the “real” one and release snapshots is transient and WIP. They don’t get merged back unless tests pass.