Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
Since 'test' is a throwaway branch anyway, might it not make sense to
clone master to test and then rebase satadev onto it? Thus you would end
up with the linear history:
o---o---o---o---o---o---o test (satadev')
| |
2.6.17 master
You know that master works and satadev' doesn't, and the bisection is
simple. After you find that bug, you can throw away the test branch.
I've considered suggesting it before looking at what is in
satadev. It is merged up in the Linus head right now, so you
are talking about really _huge_ changes that are not yours and
with a lot of merges.
It usually is much easier to rebase your own code than other's.
BTW, I really hate MUA's that does Mail-Followup-To to somebody
else. This message for example would not help Martin more than
it would help you, but your MUA somehow redirected it to him.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Since 'test' is a throwaway branch anyway, might it not make sense to
clone master to test and then rebase satadev onto it? Thus you would end
up with the linear history:
o---o---o---o---o---o---o test (satadev')
| |
2.6.17 master
You know that master works and satadev' doesn't, and the bisection is
simple. After you find that bug, you can throw away the test branch.
I've considered suggesting it before looking at what is in
satadev. It is merged up in the Linus head right now, so you
are talking about really _huge_ changes that are not yours and
with a lot of merges.
It usually is much easier to rebase your own code than other's.
BTW, I really hate MUA's that does Mail-Followup-To to somebody
else. This message for example would not help Martin more than
it would help you, but your MUA somehow redirected it to him.
I think the rebase idea is going to be painful. There are a *lot* of
changesets in between 2.6.17 and satadev, due to the post-2.6.17 devel
cycle opening.
I rebasing quickly, but it would require a bit of merging. I'll try
tomorrow to see how bad it really is.
Thank you both for the ideas. I think I've got enough information now
to continue.
mh
--
Martin Hicks || mort@bork.org || PGP/GnuPG: 0x4C7F2BEE