From: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:59:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] user-manual: add advanced topic "bisecting merges"
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:

> 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