On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 03:26:09PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Christian Borntraeger > <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In my opinion we should really avoid subtree merges in the future as a curtesy > > to people who do the uncool work of testing, problem tracking and bisecting. > > </rant> > > As an alternative, you can relatively easily rewrite the following > independent histories: > > A -- B -- C > X -- Y -- Z > > To look like this: > > A -- B -- C -- X' -- Y' -- Z' > > Where X' is (C + sub/dir/X), Y' is (C + sub/dir/Y), etc... Given that the subtree may have been in development for a long time, it is almost a certainty that the older commits may compile on A but not on C. By basing it all on C you create a lot of uncompilable commits which hurt bisection just as bad. At least with missing kernel sources it is obvious that an attempt at compilation is futile and a waste of time. -- 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
