skillzero@xxxxxxxxx, 14.01.2009: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > After you created the fixup, you have this situation: > > > > o--o--o <- A (feature branch) > > / > > --o--x <- X (the fix-up branch) > > \ > > o--o--o <- Z (probably your master) > > > > You merge the fix-up into the feature branch and continue developing the > > feature: > > > > o--o--o--M--o--o <- A > > / / > > --o--x-----' <- X > > \ > > o--o--o <- Z > > > > Other people need the fix in Z right now, so you merge it into Z as well: > > > > o--o--o--M--o--o <- A > > / / > > --o--x-----< <- X > > \ \ > > o--o--o--N <- Z > > > > You complete your feature and merge it into Z: > > > > o--o--o--M--o--o <- A > > / / \ > > --o--x-----< \ <- X > > \ \ \ > > o--o--o--N---------O <- Z > > > > The fix-up commit is only once in your history. > > Thanks for the info. That's what I was hoping, but I was thinking that > I'd get duplicate commits if I did that. I'll have to try it out when > I run into this situation again. Note, that you'd get 2 merge commits for this fix-up commit into branch Z. The first from merging X into Z, the second is created from merging X into A and occures in Z when merging A into it. Markus -- 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
