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

From: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
Date: Nov 8, 2007, 15:07 UTC
Message-ID: <C46133BD-4B1D-418A-BC7E-8BA3C815D5DD@zib.de>
In-Reply-To: <5498B368-053A-424E-B901-A55B66FF5801@lrde.epita.fr>

On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Benoit Sigoure wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
>
>> Do you use rebase like this in real life?
>>
>> I thought of the text as background information that might
>> be helpful for users who want do decide wether to merge or
>> to rebase. The problem described may be valuable information
>> supporting a decision about a recommended workflow for a group
>> of users.
>
> You're missing the point.  Johannes suggested that you rebase  
> *only* for bisecting purpose.  Once you find the culprit commit,  
> throw away your rebased stuff.

I got this point. I also noted that it might be time consuming if you need to resolve conflicts.

The original discussion in which Junio explained the problem with bisecting merges was about workflows. The question then was if users should _always_ rebase if possible to make bisecting easier. It was really a workflow question.

Well, the context of the original discussion is no longer present in the patch I sent. Therefore, Johannes' comments absolutely make sense. Actually I find them really inspiring as I have not thought before about rebasing temporarily, just for finding a commit. Now I learnt that this could be a useful tool.

> I've never thought about doing this myself, but it's a very clever  
> way of tackling this problem.

Apparently, you haven't thought about this solution either ;)

	Steffen