On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
Michael Dressel, Sat, Dec 15, 2007 19:14:48 +0100:
Maybe. Or maybe you misunderstood the meaning of --squash, which also
is not a merge.
Since "git merge --squash <branch>" does a merge of <branch> into the
working tree why would you not call it a merge?
Because merge, in Git language, means connection histories. That one
just mixes the text. That's different operation, kind of editing a
file.
That's a nice clarification. In my case I wanted that "just mixes the
text" thing because I did aggressively do commits during development
trying out slightly different approaches and being able to go back to compare
them. These different games are not interesting to keep in the history
once a good solution has been found.
Anyway that was what I wanted. Merging <branch> (a topic branch) into my
current branch (the main branch) but being able to create commits that are
more suitable for keeping in the history of the current branch than the
commits I created during developing on <branch>.
Would you recommend a different way of doing this?
I would not recommend doing it at all. If I must, I'd rather use
git-rebase -i (interactive rebase).
Yes I didn't use rebase sofar. I should consider it sometimes.
Cheers,
Michael
-
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
