Re: git merge --no-commit <branch>; does commit
- From
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 15, 2007, 19:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20071215193741.GB3021@steel.home>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LSU.0.99999.0712151905280.4341@castor.milkiway.cos>
Michael Dressel, Sat, Dec 15, 2007 19:14:48 +0100:
Show 5 quoted lines
>> 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.
Show 5 quoted lines
> 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).