[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bisecting display bugs
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Bisecting display bugs |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:54:42 +0300 |
> From: Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:46:42 +0200
>
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> +Some caveats:
> >> +
> >> +- This script cleans Emacs' source directory with ‘git clean -xfd’, so
> >> + make sure your uncommitted changes are saved somewhere else.
> >
> > While bootstrapping after each step of bisect is safe, it makes the
> > run much longer, so I'd try bisecting without a bootstrap first,
> > especially if the range of commits to bisect is relatively small.
>
> Although that sounds good in principle, my experience tells me that
> taking the short path does waste more time than it saves on this case.
My experience is different. I almost never bootstrap. (I also keep
past binaries, which allows a very fast pseudo-bisection.)
> >> but some are only
> >> +apparent through visual inspection. Since building Emacs takes a long
> >> +time, it can be a pain to debug these manually.
> >
> > I don't follow this logic: building is an automated process, while
> > visual inspection is usually very fast; the automated comparison
> > you are about to suggest doesn't decrease the build time. So how does
> > the conclusion follow?
>
> Because I have to be there in front of the terminal.
No, you don't. While Emacs builds, you can do whatever else you need
to do.