From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:33:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] user-manual: add advanced topic "bisecting merges"
Message-ID: <4732D7F6.7040006@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <4732D2CC.1010008@viscovery.net>

Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 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