Re: [PATCH v2] user-manual: add advanced topic "bisecting merges"
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Nov 8, 2007, 09:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4732D7F6.7040006@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <4732D2CC.1010008@viscovery.net>
Johannes Sixt wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Steffen Prohaska schrieb: >> >> On Nov 8, 2007, at 8:19 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> >>> Steffen Prohaska schrieb: >>>> +If you linearize the history by rebasing the lower branch on >>>> +top of the upper, instead of merging, the bug becomes much easier to >>>> +find and understand. Your history would instead be: >>> >>> At this point I'm missing the words >>> >>> The solution is ... >>> >>> I.e.: >>> >>> The solution is to linearize the history by rebasing the lower branch on >>> top of the upper, instead of merging. Now the bug becomes much easier to >>> find and understand. Your history would instead be: >> >> Hmm. It might be a solution if you did not publish history. > > This is about finding the commit that introduced a bug. Once you found > it, better: you know how to fix the bug, you are expected to throw away > the rebased branch, not to publish it! Maybe a note along these lines > could be appended: > > Now that you know what caused the error (and how to fix it), throw away > the rebased branch, and commit a fix on top of D. >
Well, if rebasing becomes the standard for normal development, it's hardly right to throw it away, is it? I like Steffen's suggestion better.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231