From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] user-manual: add advanced topic "bisecting merges" Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:11:40 +0100 Message-ID: <4732D2CC.1010008@viscovery.net> References: <20071104112302.GA2119@ins.uni-bonn.de> <11944722214046-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <4732B899.6000908@viscovery.net> <6E62E205-0951-4CCB-A807-AC107E40ACE1@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gitster@pobox.com, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de, tsuna@lrde.epita.fr, git@vger.kernel.org To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 08 10:12:11 2007 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 1Iq3Qi-0005YS-BP for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:12:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760609AbXKHJLr (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 04:11:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760607AbXKHJLr (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 04:11:47 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:60736 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760466AbXKHJLp (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 04:11:45 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1Iq3Ps-0005nd-P7; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:11:12 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707A06B7; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:11:40 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <6E62E205-0951-4CCB-A807-AC107E40ACE1@zib.de> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steffen Prohaska schrieb: > > 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. This is about finding the commit that introduced a bug. Once you found it, better: you know how to fix the bug, you are expected to throw away the rebased branch, not to publish it! Maybe a note along these lines could be appended: Now that you know what caused the error (and how to fix it), throw away the rebased branch, and commit a fix on top of D. -- Hannes