bisect: add --force flag to force checkout

[kevmo314]

Adds a --force/-f flag to git bisect good/bad and git bisect run to
force a checkout. Currently, if the repository state adds any local changes
the user must manually reset the repository state before moving to the next
bisection step. This can happen with package lock files or log output data,
for example. With this change, a developer can run git bisect run --force
to automatically reset the repository state after each evaluation. The flag
is also supported as git bisect (good|bad) --force as well.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to Git! Please be advised that the
Git community does not use github.com for their contributions. Instead, we use
a mailing list ([email protected]) for code submissions, code reviews, and
bug reports. Nevertheless, you can use GitGitGadget (https://gitgitgadget.github.io/)
to conveniently send your Pull Requests commits to our mailing list.

Please read the "guidelines for contributing" linked above!

[gitgitgadget-git]

Welcome to GitGitGadget

Hi @kevmo314, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests.

Please make sure that your Pull Request has a good description, as it will be used as cover letter. You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax:

CC: Revi Ewer <[email protected]>, Ill Takalook <[email protected]>

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:

• the lines should not exceed 76 columns,
• the first line should be like a header and typically start with a prefix like "tests:" or "revisions:" to state which subsystem the change is about, and
• the commit messages' body should be describing the "why?" of the change.
• Finally, the commit messages should end in a Signed-off-by: line matching the commits' author.

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 patches

Before 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 /allow. A good way to find other contributors is to locate recent pull requests where someone has been /allowed:

• Search: is:pr is:open "/allow"

Both the person who commented /allow and the PR author are able to /allow you.

An alternative is the channel #git-devel on the Libera Chat IRC network:

<newcontributor> I've just created my first PR, could someone please /allow me? https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/12345
<veteran> newcontributor: it is done
<newcontributor> thanks!

Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment /submit.

If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a /submit request, add a PR comment /preview to have the email(s) sent to you. You must have a public GitHub email address for this. Note that any reviewers CC'd via the list in the PR description will not actually be sent emails.

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 (raw) link), then import it into your mail program. If you use GMail, you can do this via:

curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
    --url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txt

To 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):

Changes since v1:
- Fixed a typo in the commit message (found by ...)
- Added a code comment to ... as suggested by ...
...

To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: /submit.

Need help?

New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join [email protected], 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, #git-devel on Libera Chat. Remember that IRC does not support offline messaging, so if you send someone a private message and log out, they cannot respond to you. The scrollback of #git-devel is archived, though.

[gitgitgadget-git]

There are issues in commit 0c087d1:
bisect: add --force flag to force checkout
Commit not signed off

[Ikke]

/allow

[gitgitgadget-git]

User kevmo314 is now allowed to use GitGitGadget.

[gitgitgadget-git]

There are issues in commit 149a18a:
bisect: add --force flag to force checkout
Commit not signed off

[gitgitgadget-git]

There are issues in commit a4de31f:
bisect: add --force flag to force checkout
Commit not signed off

[kevmo314]

/preview

[gitgitgadget-git]

Preview email sent as [email protected]

[kevmo314]

/submit

[gitgitgadget-git]

Submitted as [email protected]

To fetch this version into FETCH_HEAD:

git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ pr-git-1641/kevmo314/bisect-force-v1

To fetch this version to local tag pr-git-1641/kevmo314/bisect-force-v1:

git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ tag pr-git-1641/kevmo314/bisect-force-v1

[gitgitgadget-git]

On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):

"Kevin Wang via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:

> From: Kevin Wang <[email protected]>
>
> Adds a `--force`/`-f` flag to `git bisect good/bad` and `git bisect run` to
> force a checkout. Currently, if the repository state adds any local changes
> the user must manually reset the repository state before moving to the next
> bisection step. This can happen with package lock files or log output data,
> for example. With this change, a developer can run `git bisect run --force`
> to automatically reset the repository state after each evaluation. The flag
> is also supported as `git bisect (good|bad) --force` as well.

The usual way to compose a log message is to

 - Give an observation on how the current system work in the present
   tense (so no need to say "Currently X is Y", just "X is Y"), and
   discuss what you perceive as a problem in it.

 - Propose a solution (optional---often, problem description
   trivially leads to an obvious solution in reader's minds).

 - Give commands to the make codebase "like so".

in this order.

To those who have been intimately following the discussion, it often
is understandable without both, but we are not writing for those who
review the patches.  We are writing for future readers who are not
aware of the review discussion we have on list, so we should give
something to prepare them by setting the stage and stating the
objective first, before going into how the patch solved it.

Having said all that.

I highly doubt that this patch is a good idea.  If your "bisect run"
script needs to update something in the working tree before it runs
some test, the script is in a much better place than Git, which is
unaware of what your run script is doing, to prepare the working
tree into pristine state.  The best Git would be able to do would be
to "reset --hard", but that will lose local modifications that are
deliberately there and has nothing to do with what your run script
did.

Adding some description to the documentation of "bisect run" and
teaching readers a common trick of structuring their run script
better might be a more productive approach, I would have to say.
For example, when I bisect some old code, I may have to apply a
temporary patch to some of the sources to get them compile with more
recent compilers (I usually do this with a cherry-picking of a local
fixup).  So my "bisect run" script might go like so:

    #!/bin/sh
    # bisect run

    git apply local-fixup || exit 125
    make test
    status=$?
    make distclean
    git apply -R local-fixup || exit 125
    exit $status

That is, I'd apply some local fix-up to the working tree files
before running tests, and once done, I revert the local fix-up
and exit from the run script with the exit status of the test
I wanted to perform.
    
This way, I can keep other local changes (things like changes to
documentation files that I am working on, which has nothing to do
with the problem I am bisecting but I know they do not interfere)
without wiping them away with a sledgehammer "reset --hard".  Your
"bisect good/bad -f" sounds like the sledgehammer approach to me.

Thanks.