Re: git-merge-subordinate

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Oct 25, 2006, 16:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20061025162758.GC9312@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0610251819080.3286@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> 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... :-)