You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Reviews: expand a but about interactive rebase work
Add an information from Dscho about the use of Scientist
library to ensure that the patches making interactive rebase
faster are in fact correct.
I'm not sure if the new information is well connected to
the rest of it; as it is now, this point has actually two
endings...
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: rev_news/drafts/edition-20.md
+23Lines changed: 23 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -124,6 +124,29 @@ around the sequencer are of course very nice. It is interesting and
124
124
satisfying to see that they are the result of building on top of
125
125
previous work over the years by GSoC students, mentors and reviewers.
126
126
127
+
Dscho wrote about making _interactive rebase_ much faster in the
128
+
blog post [What’s new in Git for Windows 2.10?](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudioalm/2016/09/03/whats-new-in-git-for-windows-2-10/)
129
+
(linked to in previous Git Rev News), repeating and extending information
130
+
from above-mentioned answer. Among others, he wrote how can he be sure
131
+
that the code is ready:
132
+
133
+
> The answer: I verified it. Inspired by [GitHub’s blog post on their
134
+
> Scientist library](http://githubengineering.com/scientist/), I taught
135
+
> my personal Git version to cross-validate each and every interactive
136
+
> rebase that I performed since the middle of May. That is, each and every
137
+
> interactive rebase I ran was first performed using the original shell
138
+
> script, then using the `git rebase--helper`, and then the results were
139
+
> confirmed to be identical (modulo time stamps).
140
+
141
+
And further:
142
+
143
+
> Full disclosure: the cross-validation did find three regressions that
144
+
> were not caught by the regression test suite (which I have subsequently
145
+
> adjusted to test for those issues, of course). So it was worth the effort.
146
+
147
+
One can find which regressions were there in the [followup on git mailing list](http://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.DEB.2.20.1609111010440.129229@virtualbox/).
148
+
It is interesting to find the use of the [Scientist library](https://github.com/github/scientist)
0 commit comments