diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/user-manual.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/user-manual.txt | 87 |
1 files changed, 80 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt index c7cfbbccfc..3661879f1a 100644 --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -658,16 +658,23 @@ gitlink:git-diff[1]: $ 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 @@ -1567,9 +1574,9 @@ old history using, for example, $ git log master@{1} ------------------------------------------------- -This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the head. -This syntax can be used 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, @@ -2554,6 +2561,72 @@ branches into their own work. 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 ========================== |