On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Since 'test' is a throwaway branch anyway, might it not make sense to > > clone master to test and then rebase satadev onto it? Thus you would end > > up with the linear history: > > o---o---o---o---o---o---o test (satadev') > > | | > > 2.6.17 master > > > > You know that master works and satadev' doesn't, and the bisection is > > simple. After you find that bug, you can throw away the test branch. > > I've considered suggesting it before looking at what is in > satadev. It is merged up in the Linus head right now, so you > are talking about really _huge_ changes that are not yours and > with a lot of merges. > > It usually is much easier to rebase your own code than other's. > > BTW, I really hate MUA's that does Mail-Followup-To to somebody > else. This message for example would not help Martin more than > it would help you, but your MUA somehow redirected it to him. I think the rebase idea is going to be painful. There are a *lot* of changesets in between 2.6.17 and satadev, due to the post-2.6.17 devel cycle opening. I rebasing quickly, but it would require a bit of merging. I'll try tomorrow to see how bad it really is. Thank you both for the ideas. I think I've got enough information now to continue. mh -- Martin Hicks || mort@xxxxxxxx || PGP/GnuPG: 0x4C7F2BEE - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html