diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt | 32 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt index 8a2ba37904..0f0c6ff082 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-bisect-lk2009.txt @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ developed and maintained during years or even tens of years by a lot of people. And as there are often many people who depend (sometimes critically) on such software, regressions are a really big problem. -One such software is the linux kernel. And if we look at the linux +One such software is the Linux kernel. And if we look at the Linux kernel, we can see that a lot of time and effort is spent to fight regressions. The release cycle start with a 2 weeks long merge window. Then the first release candidate (rc) version is tagged. And @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ regressions. And this time is more than 80% of the release cycle time. But this is not the end of the fight yet, as of course it continues after the release. -And then this is what Ingo Molnar (a well known linux kernel +And then this is what Ingo Molnar (a well known Linux kernel developer) says about his use of git bisect: _____________ @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ Note that the example that we will use is really a toy example, we will be looking for the first commit that has a version like "2.6.26-something", that is the commit that has a "SUBLEVEL = 26" line in the top level Makefile. This is a toy example because there are -better ways to find this commit with git than using "git bisect" (for +better ways to find this commit with Git than using "git bisect" (for example "git blame" or "git log -S<string>"). Driving a bisection manually @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ Date: Sat May 3 11:59:44 2008 -0700 Linux 2.6.26-rc1 -:100644 100644 5cf8258195331a4dbdddff08b8d68642638eea57 4492984efc09ab72ff6219a7bc21fb6a957c4cd5 M Makefile +:100644 100644 5cf82581... 4492984e... M Makefile ------------- At this point we can see what the commit does, check it out (if it's @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ Date: Sat May 3 11:59:44 2008 -0700 Linux 2.6.26-rc1 -:100644 100644 5cf8258195331a4dbdddff08b8d68642638eea57 4492984efc09ab72ff6219a7bc21fb6a957c4cd5 M Makefile +:100644 100644 5cf82581... 4492984e... M Makefile bisect run success ------------- @@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ So only the W and B commits will be kept. Because commits X and Y will have been removed by rules a) and b) respectively, and because commits G are removed by rule b) too. -Note for git users, that it is equivalent as keeping only the commit +Note for Git users, that it is equivalent as keeping only the commit given by: ------------- @@ -710,8 +710,8 @@ Skip algorithm discussed After step 7) (in the skip algorithm), we could check if the second commit has been skipped and return it if it is not the case. And in fact that was the algorithm we used from when "git bisect skip" was -developed in git version 1.5.4 (released on February 1st 2008) until -git version 1.6.4 (released July 29th 2009). +developed in Git version 1.5.4 (released on February 1st 2008) until +Git version 1.6.4 (released July 29th 2009). But Ingo Molnar and H. Peter Anvin (another well known linux kernel developer) both complained that sometimes the best bisection points @@ -1025,10 +1025,10 @@ And here is what Andreas said about this work-flow <<5>>: _____________ To give some hard figures, we used to have an average report-to-fix cycle of 142.6 hours (according to our somewhat weird bug-tracker -which just measures wall-clock time). Since we moved to git, we've +which just measures wall-clock time). Since we moved to Git, we've lowered that to 16.2 hours. Primarily because we can stay on top of the bug fixing now, and because everyone's jockeying to get to fix -bugs (we're quite proud of how lazy we are to let git find the bugs +bugs (we're quite proud of how lazy we are to let Git find the bugs for us). Each new release results in ~40% fewer bugs (almost certainly due to how we now feel about writing tests). _____________ @@ -1228,9 +1228,9 @@ commits in already released history, for example to change the commit message or the author. And it can also be used instead of git "grafts" to link a repository with another old repository. -In fact it's this last feature that "sold" it to the git community, so -it is now in the "master" branch of git's git repository and it should -be released in git 1.6.5 in October or November 2009. +In fact it's this last feature that "sold" it to the Git community, so +it is now in the "master" branch of Git's Git repository and it should +be released in Git 1.6.5 in October or November 2009. One problem with "git replace" is that currently it stores all the replacements refs in "refs/replace/", but it would be perhaps better @@ -1320,11 +1320,11 @@ So git bisect is unconditional goodness - and feel free to quote that ;-) _____________ -Acknowledgements +Acknowledgments ---------------- Many thanks to Junio Hamano for his help in reviewing this paper, for -reviewing the patches I sent to the git mailing list, for discussing +reviewing the patches I sent to the Git mailing list, for discussing some ideas and helping me improve them, for improving "git bisect" a lot and for his awesome work in maintaining and developing Git. @@ -1337,7 +1337,7 @@ Many thanks to Linus Torvalds for inventing, developing and evangelizing "git bisect", Git and Linux. Many thanks to the many other great people who helped one way or -another when I worked on git, especially to Andreas Ericsson, Johannes +another when I worked on Git, especially to Andreas Ericsson, Johannes Schindelin, H. Peter Anvin, Daniel Barkalow, Bill Lear, John Hawley, Shawn O. Pierce, Jeff King, Sam Vilain, Jon Seymour. |