bisect: do not allow when a rebase/merge/am/revert is in progress - #2421
thunder-coding wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
bisecting when any of the mentioned is going on results in the bisect overwriting any changes made during ongoing rebase/merge/am/revert without any warnings, or prompt messages. So it's ideal to refuse to do that, and ask the user to manually do it before starting a bisect Signed-off-by: Yaksh Bariya <yakshbari4@gmail.com>
Or else a started bisect can never end as bisect command needs to run to end the bisect. Classic textbook deadlock problem :) Signed-off-by: Yaksh Bariya <yakshbari4@gmail.com>
…d-term> Earlier missed, as seems like git is special case handling it by manually going through it when it doesn't match any of the subcommand. Makes sense since the good/bad term can not be known beforehand This is the cleanest way I saw it could be done without hurting code readiblity Signed-off-by: Yaksh Bariya <yakshbari4@gmail.com>
Welcome to GitGitGadgetHi @thunder-coding, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests. Please make sure that either:
You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax: NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description, Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:
It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code. Contributing the patchesBefore you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form Both the person who commented An alternative is the channel Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail). If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
--url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txtTo iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description): To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: Need help?New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join. You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, |
|
There is an issue in commit 586bdc8:
|
makes sense to check it last Signed-off-by: Yaksh Bariya <yakshbari4@gmail.com>
586bdc8 to
6264228
Compare
This got to my attention in
https://chaos.social/@karolherbst/117322259078547068. Just going
through the source code, I found that bisect is allowed to run even when
a rebase/merge/am/revert is in progress. When a rebase is in progress,
bisect simply overwrites the rebase state and starts the bisect without
any warning. This can lead to loss of work and confusion. Also since we
are it, I think we should also check for existing bisect/merge/am before
starting a new bisect. During merge, bisect seems to glitch out with Git
v2.55.0 (as packaged by Arch) when there are unmerged files, which kind
of leaves the tree in an uncertain state
Bisecting: revisions left to test after this (roughly steps)
: needs merge
error: you need to resolve your current index first
Now although you actually can't bisect as tree needs to resolve the current
index first, git bisect log shows that the good and bad states are being
logged.
The check for existing bisect/merge/am/revert is inspired from
die_if_some_operation_in_progress()inbuiltin/checkout.c.The patches are split into 4 commits as I originally created them. You
might be interested in doing a rebase and merge instead of pulling this
directly