Re: [PATCH v2] user-manual: add advanced topic "bisecting merges"

From: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
Date: Nov 8, 2007, 08:59 UTC
Message-ID: <6E62E205-0951-4CCB-A807-AC107E40ACE1@zib.de>
In-Reply-To: <4732B899.6000908@viscovery.net>

On Nov 8, 2007, at 8:19 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> 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.

How about leaving the text as is and adding an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the section?

I.e:

This section discusses how gitlink:git-bisect[1] plays with differently shaped histories. If you did not yet publish a branch you can use either gitlink:git-merge[1] or gitlink:git-rebase[1] to integrate changes from a second branch. The two approaches create differently shaped histories. So it might be interesting to know about the implications on gitlink:git-bisect[1].

	Steffen