rhlee wrote: > > > Tim Mazid wrote: >> >> Actually, there's no reason you couldn't just 'git reset HEAD^' once you >> realise that the branch isn't ready. If you want to see the changes from >> master, you could just merge that into your branch. If you just want to >> see the content in master, you could use gitk or gitg, which allows you >> to view files at any commit. >> >> Personally, I merge master into my branches, test and check, and fix, >> then merge the branch into master. This sometimes results in a >> fast-forward, if you haven't made changes to master. If you don't like >> that, you can always use the --no-ff option, though. >> > > I don't think 'git reset HEAD^' would work in my case as that only goes > back one commit. I may have made many other changes on the master branch > that I want to keep. > > By merging from master into your branch, like you said, you get a nice > graph view that shows what you've brought into your branch from master > since you last left off. But doesn't this goes against the idea that > branches should be independent, by bringing in changes from master? > Yup, you only need to 'git reset HEAD^' on the master branch to undo the merge. Isn't that what you wanted? And yeah, I suppose it kind of does. But once again, you can 'git reset HEAD^'. And since you're merging master INTO the branches, you are keeping the branches independent, anyway. -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Working-on-merged-branches-whilst-seeing-current-master-tp3987667p4070977.html Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html