From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:35:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Questions about branches in git
Message-ID: <4b61f52f.1d255e0a.4cc1.7f37@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <b4087cc51001281203q1f467480sdf848c9d3ced323b@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:
> These übercommits would also allow developers to make a string of
> commits that by themselves break things but together formulate a
> complete solution; because the übercommits encapsulate the breakage,
> bisection would still be simple (no fear of dealing with broken
> commits), but the small manageable commits would still be available

As a corollary to this, developers can maintain patch integrity.

Quite often, I've sent a patch off to some project only to have
the maintainer `tweak' the result before making a commit. However,
I frankly don't want my name attached to someone else's work,
because I may disagree with what has been done.

Were übercommits available, the maintainer could commit my original
work and then make a new `tweak' commit and then bundle the 2 together
as an übercommit in order to encapsulate this series of events.