Skip to content

rn20: expand a but about Dscho's work on interactive rebase #193

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2016
Merged

rn20: expand a but about Dscho's work on interactive rebase #193

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
23 changes: 23 additions & 0 deletions rev_news/drafts/edition-20.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -124,6 +124,29 @@ around the sequencer are of course very nice. It is interesting and
satisfying to see that they are the result of building on top of
previous work over the years by GSoC students, mentors and reviewers.

Dscho wrote about making _interactive rebase_ much faster in the
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/)
(linked to in previous Git Rev News), repeating and extending information
from above-mentioned answer. Among others, he wrote how can he be sure
that the code is ready:

> The answer: I verified it. Inspired by [GitHub’s blog post on their
> Scientist library](http://githubengineering.com/scientist/), I taught
> my personal Git version to cross-validate each and every interactive
> rebase that I performed since the middle of May. That is, each and every
> interactive rebase I ran was first performed using the original shell
> script, then using the `git rebase--helper`, and then the results were
> confirmed to be identical (modulo time stamps).

And further:

> Full disclosure: the cross-validation did find three regressions that
> were not caught by the regression test suite (which I have subsequently
> adjusted to test for those issues, of course). So it was worth the effort.

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/).
It is interesting to find the use of the [Scientist library](https://github.com/github/scientist)
for ensuring the quality of Git code refactoring.

### Support

Expand Down