Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:18:55 +0100
From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
To: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Cc: Chase Venters <chase.venters@clientec.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about your git habits
Message-ID: <20080223091855.GA18942@glandium.org>
References: <200802221837.37680.chase.venters@clientec.com> <alpine.LNX.1.00.0802222249480.19024@iabervon.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0802222249480.19024@iabervon.org>
Organization: glandium.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2180
Lines: 40

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:48PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> I find that the sequence of changes I make is pretty much unrelated to the 
> sequence of changes that end up in the project's history, because my 
> changes as I make them involve writing a lot of stubs (so I can build) and 
> then filling them out. It's beneficial to have version control on this so 
> that, if I screw up filling out a stub, I can get back to where I was.
> 
> Having made a complete series, I then generate a new series of commits, 
> each of which does one thing, without any bugs that I've resolved, such 
> that the net result is the end of the messy history, except with any 
> debugging or useless stuff skipped. It's this series that gets merged into 
> the project history, and I discard the other history.
> 
> The real trick is that the early patches in a lot of series often refactor 
> existing code in ways that are generally good and necessary for your 
> eventual outcome, but which you'd never think of until you've written more 
> of the series. Generating a new commit sequence is necessary to end up 
> with a history where it looks from the start like you know where you're 
> going and have everything done that needs to be done when you get to the 
> point of needing it. Furthermore, you want to be able to test these 
> commits in isolation, without the distraction of the changes that actually 
> prompted them, which means that you want to have your working tree is a 
> state that you never actually had it in as you were developing the end 
> result.
> 
> This means that you'll usually want to rewrite commits for any series that 
> isn't a single obvious patch, so it's not a big deal to commit any time 
> you want to work on some different branch.

I do that so much that I have this alias:
        reorder = !sh -c 'git rebase -i --onto $0 $0 $1'

... and actually pass it only one argument most of the time.

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/