From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Couder Subject: Re: Could this be done simpler? Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:55:23 +0200 Message-ID: <200906260055.23929.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> References: <200906260023.03169.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <7vprcsymjd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 26 00:55:21 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MJxqh-00062S-02 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:55:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755189AbZFYWzI (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:55:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754951AbZFYWzI (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:55:08 -0400 Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.3]:51077 "EHLO smtp3-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753416AbZFYWzH (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:55:07 -0400 Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B51818057; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:55:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bureau.boubyland (gre92-7-82-243-130-161.fbx.proxad.net [82.243.130.161]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96721818052; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:55:00 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 In-Reply-To: <7vprcsymjd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Friday 26 June 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > >> If someone creates a "git decompose-octopus " command then ... > > I am afraid that misses the entire point of my discussion. > > Such a decomposed octopus would _only_ be necessary during bisection, > only when the user chooses to test two tips at once (instead of testing > one by one), _and_ only its tree is needed for that purpose. In other > words, we should be able to do this _without_ creating an extra commit, > let alone replace mechanism. But suppose the result from the bisection tells that M1 is the first bad commit, then the user will need to look at M1, and perhaps check it out or use it in other ways after the bisection is finished. So why shouldn't it be a real commit? It's not like a few more commits are a big problem as they will be reclaimed by garbage collection anyway if the replace ref is deleted. Best regards, Christian.