[racket-dev] merge commits and git bisect?

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 11 15:12:56 EST 2012

Perhaps it is just me; googling around says that it works fine

But all the examples I see are places where people merged
intentionally. We have never done that.


On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> > Three hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> >> If so, can we forbid them on the server?
>> >
>> > I hesitate to do that since there are some cases where a merge
>> > commit makes sense.
>> So far, I've not seen the need. Can you say more about this?
> When there's a large chunk of work over an extended period, it can be
> clearer to have a merge commit done so the history looks closer to how
> things happened.
> [Clarification for the curious: when you rebase your tree, the commits
> are recreated, with a new commit date, but the same author date.  So
> you end up with commit dates that are chronological when you view the
> (linear) commit graph, but the actual dates are the author dates which
> are of course all messed up now.  This is usually not a problem, but
> with a long-lived development it can be cleaner to preserve a more
> accurate picture of the history.]
>> Also, given how all of the ones we've had so far have been mistakes,
>> how about we forbid it and then, when necessary, unforbid, merge,
>> reforbid?
> Doing just that would be very awkward (you'll push, get rejected, try
> to figure if you did something wrong, mail me, I'll allow it and tell
> you, you'll re-push and tell me to re-forbid it).  Another alternative
> is for me to have the ability to do that -- but I dislike this kind of
> magical power too.  Can you see if this is a real problem with
> bisecting?  (I've tried to read around, and it doesn't look like there
> should be problems with merges.)
> (Another sidenote: there are popular workflows that involve merges as
> the normal operation, so I'd expect bisecting to work fine with them,
> otherwise it would be a very known problem.  In particular, merges are
> very strongly encouraged by a github-centric workflow.)
> --
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                     http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.