From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: Cherry picking instead of merges. Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:36:34 +0200 Message-ID: <486DC4F2.70608@viscovery.net> References: <20080703182650.GA11166@old.davidb.org> <20080703223949.GA23092@old.davidb.org> <20080704001003.GA19053@atjola.homenet> <20080704044032.GA4445@old.davidb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6r?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?n_Steinbrink?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: David Brown X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 04 08:37:42 2008 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 1KEevK-0000A4-Ot for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:37:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751974AbYGDGgl (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 02:36:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751954AbYGDGgl (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 02:36:41 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:42198 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751385AbYGDGgk (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 02:36:40 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1KEeuJ-0006pG-CV; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:36:36 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08586D9; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:36:34 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds schrieb: > IOW, let's say that you really do bisect things down to a merge and cannot > see what the fault in that merge is, you can literally do > > # create a test-branch with the 'remote' side of the merge > git checkout -b test-branch merge^2 > > # rebase that remote side on top of the local side > git rebase merge^ > > and now you've linearized the merge temporarily just to be able to bisect > in that temporary branch what the bad interaction is. But once you've > bisected it, the temporary branch is again just junk - there's no real > value in saving it, because once you know _why_ the bug happened, you're > just better off going back to the original history and just fixing it (and > documenting the bug through the fix, rather than by addign extra-ugly > history). FWIW, the same thing in different words is written in section "Why bisecting merge commits can be harder than bisecting linear history" of Documentation/user-manual.txt. -- Hannes