[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Messing with the VC history
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Messing with the VC history |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:30:41 +0900 |
Andreas Schwab writes:
> Barry Warsaw <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > bisect would be more useful, IMHO, if it followed first-parents by default.
>
> Bisecting follows whatever you tell it about the good/bad state of
> branches.
No, bisecting has a choice of which of several paths to follow through
a DAG between a branch point and a merge. Telling it "bisect between
node and merge" doesn't help it make that choice.
I don't know how git chooses, but Barry is saying that in a workflow
where all mainline commits are either merge commits (for multiple-
commit "complex feature" branches) or one-off (for "simple bugfix"
commits), the bisect algorithm should follow the mainline (ie, first
parents) and completely ignore off-mainline "component of feature"
commits. I suspect that is in fact what git does, but don't have time
to check.
- Re: Messing with the VC history, (continued)
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/16
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/11/16
- Re: Messing with the VC history, John Yates, 2014/11/16
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/11/16
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Lars Brinkhoff, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history, David Kastrup, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history, David Kastrup, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Barry Warsaw, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Andreas Schwab, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/18
- Re: Messing with the VC history, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/17