Bisect in a sentence as a verb

The first time I used "git bisect run" I felt like I was cheating.

The prime directive is "do not break bisect".

$ git bisect start $ git bisect good $ git bisect bad master git will do all the hard work for you.

When something breaks, it is awesome to bisect it down to the precise change that broke it.

And then you try to bisect on a repository using submodules and you tear your goddamn hair out.

This is similar to how git-bisect works, and it's WAY more effective than disabling your plugins one by one.

Git includes built-in support under the bisect command.

This is really helpful if you're trying to keep your codebase clean so that `git bisect` will always work nicely, and if you just want to keep your codebase history really grokkable.

The Appalachian Mountains bisect the state, and the areas outside the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia metro areas have low population density.

Hm... I think this post is rather myopic and very specific for the author's workflow.> "This bug started happening on Tuesday last week" [...] If you aren't aware of this and you start running your "git bisect" using your "good" base as the last commit made on Monday last week [...]Well, or you could find the first commit on Tuesday last week and start with its parent.

I've successfully used "git bisect" in situations in which, as part of every test, I had to "git stash pop" some local changes, then do the test, then remember to "git stash save" them before continuing to bisect.

I find this oversight especially sarcastic as he mentions how 2. ruins git bisect, while such uncleaned 300 commit branches ruin it just as effectively, as you can never be quite sure whether the commit you arrive at isn't reverted by one 20 commits later and the real issue was introduced another 20 commits later.

I tried to bisect my way to a precise patch but it's really hard when you have ~15 steps, it's hard to tell if it "works" or not in anything less than an hour, and if you're wrong once you're guaranteed not to find the correct one.

My favorite part of `git bisect` is `run`: give it a script that'll exit with 0 for a good commit and non-0 for a bad commit, and it'll do it all for you!Personal gripe: I always, always, forget to `git bisect reset`.

If you have a regression, but have no idea what caused it, it can be very useful to bisect your commits; find a known good version and a known bad version, then go to the commit halfway in between, test that, and depending on whether that commit is good or bad, test the one halfway between that and the known good or known bad commit.

The kernel community has lots of wisdom built up around rebase vs. merge, and the way I think about it is, imagine a tree of developers with Linus at the top, maintainers in the middle, and leaf nodes at the bottom.- leaf nodes can and should rebase to ensure whatever they submit is "bisect clean"- everyone else should never rebase because you'll destroy historyAs a leaf node, you should always be committing and submitting the cleanest patches possible.

Bisect definitions


cut in half or cut in two; "bisect a line"