Re: Could this be done simpler?

> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Side note.
> >
> > People sometimes say, and I am certain I agreed to them on more than
> > one occasions, that Octopus hurt bisectability and does not have much
> > value in real life.  I've always thought this bisectability issue was a
> > downside of Octopus merges, but now I think about it, perhaps "git
> > bisect" can be taught to dynamically decompose an Octopus merges into a
> > sequence of two-head virtual merges while bisecting.  We strongly
> > discourage and do not allow conflicting Octopus merges, so when you
> > need to bisect a history with an Octopus that looks like this:
> >
> >     ---o---A
> >             \
> >   ---o---B---M---o
> >             /
> >     ---o---C
> >
> > it should be able to mechanically decompose it, without conflicts, into
> >
> >
> >     ---o---A
> >             \
> >   ---o---B---M1--M2--o
> >                 /
> >         ---o---C
> >
> > where the tree of M and the tree of M2 are identical.
>
> If someone creates a "git decompose-octopus <commit>" command then you
> only need to do "git replace M M2" after that and you can bisect as
> usual. (Of course after that you can remove the replacement with "git
> replace -d M".)