![[tokkee]](http://tokkee.org/images/avatar.png){kind=avatar}
index 64544f21e0c39cb4d835ee1c4047a7ba275338ca..3661879f1ae00c3951c4ecd320b7fab747886902 100644 (file)
If you run "git branch" at this point, you'll see that git has
temporarily moved you to a new branch named "bisect". This branch
points to a commit (with commit id 65934...) that is reachable from
-v2.6.19 but not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether
+"master" but not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether
it crashes. Assume it does crash. Then:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git diff master..test
-------------------------------------------------
-Sometimes what you want instead is a set of patches:
+That will produce the diff between the tips of the two branches. If
+you'd prefer to find the diff from their common ancestor to test, you
+can use three dots instead of two:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git diff master...test
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Sometimes what you want instead is a set of patches; for this you can
+use gitlink:git-format-patch[1]:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git format-patch master..test
-------------------------------------------------
will generate a file with a patch for each commit reachable from test
-but not from master. Note that if master also has commits which are
-not reachable from test, then the combined result of these patches
-will not be the same as the diff produced by the git-diff example.
+but not from master.
[[viewing-old-file-versions]]
Viewing old file versions
fundamentally different ways to fix the problem:
1. You can create a new commit that undoes whatever was done
- by the previous commit. This is the correct thing if your
+ by the old commit. This is the correct thing if your
mistake has already been made public.
2. You can go back and modify the old commit. You should
$ git log master@{1}
-------------------------------------------------
-This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the head.
-This syntax can be used to with any git command that accepts a commit,
-not just with git log. Some other examples:
+This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the
+"master" branch head. This syntax can be used with any git command
+that accepts a commit, not just with git log. Some other examples:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git show master@{2} # See where the branch pointed 2,
$ git pull /path/to/other/repository
-------------------------------------------------
-or an ssh url:
+or an ssh URL:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git clone ssh://yourhost/~you/repository
This is the preferred method.
If someone else administers the server, they should tell you what
-directory to put the repository in, and what git:// url it will appear
+directory to put the repository in, and what git:// URL it will appear
at. You can then skip to the section
"<<pushing-changes-to-a-public-repository,Pushing changes to a public
repository>>", below.
gitlink:git-update-server-info[1], and the documentation
link:hooks.html[Hooks used by git].)
-Advertise the url of proj.git. Anybody else should then be able to
-clone or pull from that url, for example with a command line like:
+Advertise the URL of proj.git. Anybody else should then be able to
+clone or pull from that URL, for example with a command line like:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git clone http://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git
For true distributed development that supports proper merging,
published branches should never be rewritten.
+[[bisect-merges]]
+Why bisecting merge commits can be harder than bisecting linear history
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+The gitlink:git-bisect[1] command correctly handles history that
+includes merge commits. However, when the commit that it finds is a
+merge commit, the user may need to work harder than usual to figure out
+why that commit introduced a problem.
+
+Imagine this history:
+
+................................................
+ ---Z---o---X---...---o---A---C---D
+ \ /
+ o---o---Y---...---o---B
+................................................
+
+Suppose that on the upper line of development, the meaning of one
+of the functions that exists at Z is changed at commit X. The
+commits from Z leading to A change both the function's
+implementation and all calling sites that exist at Z, as well
+as new calling sites they add, to be consistent. There is no
+bug at A.
+
+Suppose that in the meantime on the lower line of development somebody
+adds a new calling site for that function at commit Y. The
+commits from Z leading to B all assume the old semantics of that
+function and the callers and the callee are consistent with each
+other. There is no bug at B, either.
+
+Suppose further that the two development lines merge cleanly at C,
+so no conflict resolution is required.
+
+Nevertheless, the code at C is broken, because the callers added
+on the lower line of development have not been converted to the new
+semantics introduced on the upper line of development. So if all
+you know is that D is bad, that Z is good, and that
+gitlink:git-bisect[1] identifies C as the culprit, how will you
+figure out that the problem is due to this change in semantics?
+
+When the result of a git-bisect is a non-merge commit, you should
+normally be able to discover the problem by examining just that commit.
+Developers can make this easy by breaking their changes into small
+self-contained commits. That won't help in the case above, however,
+because the problem isn't obvious from examination of any single
+commit; instead, a global view of the development is required. To
+make matters worse, the change in semantics in the problematic
+function may be just one small part of the changes in the upper
+line of development.
+
+On the other hand, if instead of merging at C you had rebased the
+history between Z to B on top of A, you would have gotten this
+linear history:
+
+................................................................
+ ---Z---o---X--...---o---A---o---o---Y*--...---o---B*--D*
+................................................................
+
+Bisecting between Z and D* would hit a single culprit commit Y*,
+and understanding why Y* was broken would probably be easier.
+
+Partly for this reason, many experienced git users, even when
+working on an otherwise merge-heavy project, keep the history
+linear by rebasing against the latest upstream version before
+publishing.
+
[[advanced-branch-management]]
Advanced branch management
==========================