Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > Linus doesn't like seeing unnecessary merges in his tree. I'm not a huge > > > fan of them either. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a merge method that > > > did a merge without creating a merge? I call it git-merge-subordinate > > > (since my tree is subordinate to the tree I'm pulling from). I suppose > > > you could call it 'slave' if you want to be more pithy. Anyway, this > > > is a first attempt, and it's totally cargo-cult programming; I make no > > > claim that I understand what I'm doing. But it does seem to work. > > > > Hmmm... the --squash option to git-merge/git-pull isn't enough? > > What subordinate does is not _merge_, but _rebase_ on top of the fetched > commit. So yes, --squash isn't enough ;-) And I would suggest calling it 'git-merge-rebase', as the strategy really is rebase... :-) -- Shawn. - 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