Andreas Ericsson schrieb:
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.
There is a big misunderstanding. The text that the patch amends is about
bisecting history that reveals that a merge commit breaks, which is not
helpful, and then how to find where and what and why the breakage really was
introduce.
And the answer to "how to find" is to rebase and bisect in the rebased history.
My initial complaint was that in the flow of reading the instructions the
pointer to "the solution" was missing. Rather, at the point where the reader
is supposed to think "ah, yes, that's how to do it", there is the
conditional statement "If you linearize history". My suggestion is to put a
big emphasis on the solution by using the words "The solution is".
Now, the user can *always* rebase one of the branches on top of the other,
even if both histories are already published. *But* if both were indeed
published, then the rebased history must be thrown away, and the only thing
you learnt from it was where and what and why the breakage really was
introduced.
Of course we could include a few "ifs" and "unlesses" (about published
histories), before suggesting to throw away rebased history. But once the
task is accomplished (find the bogus commit), throwing away the rebased
history (and continuing at commit D) is always correct, but keeping it (and
continuing at D*) is not.
-- Hannes
-
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
