Re: OK, how should I have done this...

> Patrick Doyle <wpdster@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But I _know_ that there must be a better way to do this.  What should
>> I have done?
>
> Depends on how you wanted to fix your history (we already know from your
> description what shape of tree you want to end up in).
>
> If you want to pretend that you were perfect and never made mistakes in
> these three files you had to fix later, then history surgery like what
> Matthieu suggested would be necessary (I won't repeat how).
>
> On the other hand, if you want to record what you did in the time order,
> then I would probably do this:
>
>  $ git checkout master ; test ;# broken
>  $ git checkout 5ccce3 ; test ;# ok
>  $ git checkout master -- file1 ; test ;# ok
>  $ git checkout master -- file2 ; test ;# ok
>  $ git checkout master -- blah/file7 ; test ;# broken
>  $ edit blah/file7 ; test ;# ok
>  $ git reset --soft master
>  $ git commit -a -m 'The change to file3 was borked on the other env' -e
>
> and in this particular case, this would be what I would have done, as a
> separate "fix-up" commit will give me a place to describe why a solution
> different from the initial attempt, which was Ok on the original machine,
> was necessary.