Good test... but I don't think it properly portrays the way we (ok, me I
guess) really do development most of the time.
When we're creating a "feature branch"... that is typically some new
orthogonal feature that no one else is working on. I make all kinds of
commits... many of which just say "th
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Roy Stogner wrote:
> Ideally I'd like "test everything before committing" to be a
> sufficient strategy for achieving zero broken commits, but I don't
> know how to git there from here.
"git pull --no-commit", maybe? I'll try this on a third pair of
branches whenever I find
If anybody is curious about what this looks like in practice, there's
an example now at https://github.com/roystgnr/testgit
The Cliff's Notes version: we end up with breakage either way, but
more breakage with rebase.
With merges:
1: Start with merge_master
2: Branch off merge_branch
3: Make ch
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Derek Gaston wrote:
> Yes, I just made up that acronym, but I like it. ;-)
>
> I thought I would bring this discussion (that some of us were having on my
> recent Pull Request) to the list.
>
> If you haven't been following the GitHub conversation... I made an
> o
lol - I wasn't. It's not that late here and I wanted to get across these
ideas. Take your time and read them when you get a chance (or don't! ;-)
and hit me back with replies when you get around to it.
Sorry to go nuts on the list... I just want to get us all on the same page.
Even if we don't
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Derek Gaston wrote:
> Now you quickly rerun your testing for B1 and C1 (just like with SVN) and
> verify that everything is still good and then you push:
>
Let me expand a bit on this (for those of you unfamiliar with how rebase
works). I'm going to use a $ for
Don't interpret silence as disagreement - I'm dead tired and in sufficient
agreement in case you want to get some sleep...
-Ben
On Feb 4, 2013, at 9:35 PM, "Derek Gaston"
mailto:fried...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Derek Gaston
mailto:fried...@gmail.com>> wrote:
And t
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Derek Gaston wrote:
> And the alternative rebased log looks like "A, then D, then D+(B-A),
>
> then D+(C-A)", right? And that's nice because it's more like what
>
> we'd get from passing patches around, but in fact that intermediate
>
> "D+(B-A)" state is one that
Roy posited this on GitHub and I wanted to respond:
> At worst they screw with bisections... and with backtracking and
> > undoing changes in general.
> I'd have expected the opposite to be true. That may just mean I don't
> understand git yet.
> Master begins in state A; I change it to state B, t
