David Kastrup venit, vidit, dixit 02.12.2009 10:32: > > Hi, > > sometimes there are changes which would seem better to restructure into > more than one commit, with a non-operative intermediate state. > > What I am thinking of is something like > > a) change an API (small but highly intricate patch warranting thorough > line-by-line review to make sure it's fine) > b) adapt all existing callers (really large but utterly trivial patch) > > Substructuring this change into two commits may be quite nicer for > reviewing and following it. > > Except that it breaks git bisect. If there was a way to mark a commit > as non-interesting, something which does not necessarily need any new > repo features but just a convention like automatically skipping commits > that contain the literal string [skip bisect] in the commit message, > that would be one way to implement basic functionality like that. > > A more thorough approach might also warn against partial cherrypicks or > rebases or merges applying just part of one such a combined change. > > But the main point is the ability to keep git bisect working on commit > combinations with deliberately non-operative transitory stage. > A quick solution with current git would be "replace": Say, in A-B-C-D you want B and C to be considered an "atom" for bisection. So, "git replace" C by a commit C' which is B+C squashed and has A as its parent: A-C'-D. Alternatively, if you want this to be distributed more easily and think of it at the time of committing, producing a DAG like A--C'--D \ / B--C with C' as the first parent of D may help during bisection. I.e., you keep the detailed history on the side branch and squash it together on the --first-parent-line, with C,C' being tree-same. Cheers, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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