On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > + > +But if you already made a merge C instead of rebasing, all > +is not lost. In the illustrated case, you can easily rebase > +one parent branch on top of the other after the fact, just > +to understand the history and to make the history more > +easily to bisect. I simply don't think this is true. You can *not* easily rebase after the fact. Both the parents may have lots of merges independently of each other, and rebase won't be able to do *anything* with such a case. In fact, the only reason you think you can easily rebase after-the-fact is that you made the example history be trivial. In real life, if the example history is that trivial (just a single merge of two otherwise linear histories), you'd probably generally not have this problem in the first place. The facts are: - git bisect can handle merges quite well, and points to the right commit (which is *usually* not a merge). - but merges by definition introduce changes from two independent lines of development, and while both lines may work well on their own, it is possible that (a) the merge itself was done incorrectly or (b) the two (or more) features that were introduced simply clash. - "git rebase" won't do a thing for this after the fact, except in trivial cases, and even then it will generate a new history that simply isn't compatible with the original history, so while it could in theory help bisect things further in some limited and simple cases, in general it's simply not that useful an approach. ..and I think it's simply wrong to even *try* to imply that "git rebase" can somehow change any of this. Linus - 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
