On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:38:28 +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> Now, I want to make a commit that fixes that bug. These are the options:
>
> * -- * -- B -- * -- * -- * -- F
>
> or
>
> * -- * -- B -- * -- * -- * -- M
> \ /
> --------------- F
>
> That is - just commit a fix or, commit the fix, "F", directly on "B" then
> merge that fix back to HEAD with "M".
>
> I quite like option 2 because it records intent - i.e. "I wish I could have
> gone back and changed this revision, but I can't", but it makes a more
> complicated history.
>
> What do people think?
The big advantage of the later is, that if you have:
* -- B -- * -- * -- M1
\
-- * -- * -- M2
You can merge the fix done on yet another branch into how many branches you
need, so:
* -- B -- * -- * ----- M1
\ /
-- * -- * ----/- M2
\ / /
----------F---
If you had the fix on one of the branches, you could only cherry-pick it to
the other, but the history would not really reflect that.
--
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
