Hi, On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:43 PM LukÃ¡Å¡ KrejÄÃ <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Hello again, > > after looking into this today, I'm not sure if this can be considered a > bug - it's just that I expected Git to check out the exact commit to > test that was there before resetting the bisect. That made me uncertain > whether Git restored the correct state. > > When I looked at what Git actually does, it became clear that the > behavior is not incorrect but perhaps a bit surprising. Yeah, I agree. I suspect, but I am not sure, that the difference of behavior is because in one case we only check merge bases once at the beginning (maybe because the BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK file always exists) while in the other case we check them more than once during the bisection. I haven't had time to look closely at this, but I would like to. > When Git replays the bisect log, it only updates refs/bisect/bad, > refs/bisect/good-*, refs/bisect/skip-* and reconstructs the log in > .git/BISECT_LOG. After that check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad() verifies > that all good commits are ancestors of the bad commit, and if not, the > message "Bisecting: a merge base must be tested" is printed and the > branch is switched to the merge base of the bad and all the good > commits. I am not sure if you are talking about running `git bisect replay` or sourcing the log in the above. > Basically, some state is lost because Git "forgot" the first good > commit from the log already was an ancestor of the first bad one. The BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK file should be there to avoid forgetting that we already checked the merge bases. > In other words, it's as if I just started the bisect with the following > commands and just pasted the whole bisect log to .git/BISECT_LOG: > > $ git bisect start > $ git bisect good 94710cac0ef4ee177a63b5227664b38c95bbf703 > $ git bisect good 958f338e96f874a0d29442396d6adf9c1e17aa2d > $ git bisect bad 1b0d274523df5ef1caedc834da055ff721e4d4f0 > Bisecting: a merge base must be tested > [1e4b044d22517cae7047c99038abb444423243ca] Linux 4.18-rc4 Yeah, when we start a new bisection the BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK file should be erased if it exists, while it shouldn't be erased when we are already in the middle of an existing bisection. [...] > And indeed, marking the merge base as good switches to the correct > commit after the bisect. Marking it as bad will fail, so at least you > can't make a mistake after replaying the bisect log: > $ git bisect bad > The merge base 1e4b044d22517cae7047c99038abb444423243ca is bad. > This means the bug has been fixed between 1e4b044d22517cae7047c99038abb444423243ca and [94710cac0ef4ee177a63b5227664b38c95bbf703 958f338e96f874a0d29442396d6adf9c1e17aa2d]. Yeah, I think this works as expected. > Once again, I'm sorry for the noise. I guess it wasn't clear from the > man page that something like this could happen and that made me think > that this was a bug. No reason to be sorry, there might still be a bug related to the BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK file or something. I hope I can take a look at this more closely soon. Thanks for your report and your work on this, Christian.