On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:38:28 +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
quoted text
> Now, I want to make a commit that fixes that bug.  These are the options:
>=20
>  * -- * -- B -- * -- * -- * -- F
>=20
>  or
>=20
>  * -- * -- B -- * -- * -- * -- M
>             \                 /
>              --------------- F
>=20
> That is - just commit a fix or, commit the fix, "F", directly on "B" then=
=20
quoted text
> merge that fix back to HEAD with "M".
>=20
> I quite like option 2 because it records intent - i.e. "I wish I could ha=
ve=20
quoted text
> gone back and changed this revision, but I can't", but it makes a more=20
> complicated history.
>=20
> What do people think?

The big advantage of the later is, that if you have:

 * -- B -- * -- * -- M1
       \
        -- * -- * -- M2

You can merge the fix done on yet another branch into how many branches you
need, so:

 * -- B -- * -- * ----- M1
       \               /
        -- * -- * ----/- M2
	 \           /  /
	  ----------F---

If you had the fix on one of the branches, you could only cherry-pick it to
the other, but the history would not really reflect that.

--=20
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>