Git bisect (2006)

Wow, that would be a great way to respond to all of the people who think git is too complex. :P

If you understand Git branches, this analogy one may help you to understand topology.

That's really... good. I have the theory that whether or not you see this is as an attempt at a legitimate explanation or just a joke depends on your level of self-confidence. I think few people will actually understand it (if they do it's a miracle, since such understanding would be a product purely of your own mind trying to interpret sense into what it sees), but those who lack self-confidence will see the fault in themselves, while those with enough confidence upon realizing they don't understand it will realize it's a joke, because if it wasn't they should have understood it.

Of course, now I'm open to a reply that demonstrates that it isn't a joke but makes perfect sense and that I'm clueless and overconfident... :)

Rebasing frequently is nice because it forced you to use Git in a way that makes rebasing pain-free, which leads to nicer Git usage in general.

In my earlier projects when I thought rebasing was evil, it was always because I was abusing aspects of the history that only made everything harder for myself.

(though then again there's surely a million different ways to use a tool like Git, this is all just in my experience)

...well actually... representing an n-dimensional shape as a 2-dimensional line is precisely what the mathematical term "projection" means. My apologies. Accurate phrasing had less punch.

Bisecting with commits that weren't actually tested because no-one ever checked out a tree that literally looked like that is worse, IME. I'd rather embrace the fact that the commits I have to work with are what Bob had on his workstation on Tuesday and what Jim had on his workstation on Tuesday than try to bisect using a "fictional" commit that's actually "what Jim had on Tuesday + Bob's changes up to Friday".