I simply don't think this is true.
You can *not* easily rebase after the fact. Both the parents may have lots
of merges independently of each other, and rebase won't be able to do
*anything* with such a case. In fact, the only reason you think you can
easily rebase after-the-fact is that you made the example history be
trivial. In real life, if the example history is that trivial (just a
single merge of two otherwise linear histories), you'd probably generally
not have this problem in the first place.
The facts are:
- git bisect can handle merges quite well, and points to the right
commit (which is *usually* not a merge).
- but merges by definition introduce changes from two independent lines
of development, and while both lines may work well on their own, it is
possible that (a) the merge itself was done incorrectly or (b) the two
(or more) features that were introduced simply clash.
- "git rebase" won't do a thing for this after the fact, except in
trivial cases, and even then it will generate a new history that simply
isn't compatible with the original history, so while it could in theory
help bisect things further in some limited and simple cases, in general
it's simply not that useful an approach.
..and I think it's simply wrong to even *try* to imply that "git rebase"
can somehow change any of this.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
