News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Git vs. Fossil: what you should have done vs. what you did. Parent comment

Re:Git vs. Fossil: what you should have done vs. what you did by handrous on Monday July 05, 2021 @10:36AM (#27738429)
Agreed. I'm entirely not following how a commit stream that may contain entirely broken commits aids in bisecting to find a specific flaw. Those would just be noise, at best. Even if you're just manually testing each commit, you do need it to build and run.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Git vs. Fossil: what you should have done vs. what you did by krzyk on Monday July 05, 2021 @11:10AM (#27738753)
git bisect is not something one thinks when commiting code.

And there is a difference between entirely broken builds and not-tested ones.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Git vs. Fossil: what you should have done vs. what you did by yoz-y on Monday July 05, 2021 @12:10PM (#27739388)
> git bisect is not something one thinks when commiting code.

depends on the repo structure

> And there is a difference between entirely broken builds and not-tested ones.

depends on your testing philosophy and process

[ Parent | on HN ]