Johannes Sixt wrote:
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.
Well, if rebasing becomes the standard for normal development, it's hardly
right to throw it away, is it? I like Steffen's suggestion better.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
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
