Re: Preserving branches after merging on ancestor
- From
Björn Steinbrink <b.steinbrink@gmx.de>
- Date
- Nov 7, 2009, 13:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20091107133101.GB9303@atjola.homenet>
- In-Reply-To
- <c94f8e120911061941l1fb62d84g9a5ba3f1a00d9156@mail.gmail.com>
On 2009.11.07 09:11:11 +0530, Dilip M wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:51 PM, rhlee <richard@webdezign.co.uk> wrote: > > > Hi John, Björn and Eric, > > > > Thank you very much for your replies from which I gained a lot > > insight about git merging and different workflows. > > > > Yes, I have tried out --no-ff and it does the job for me. > > (Incidentally, doing that take it look neater in git gui as all the > > master nodes appear on top of each other. Using empty commits, the > > merged branches appear on top the master nodes in the graph.) > > Thanks to Richard, John, Björn, and Eric. > > I had a similar _confusion_ looking looking at graph. I always use > "log --graph --pretty=oneline". Now I have _opted_ to pull/merge with > '--no-ff', to keep the graph plain and simple for non-power users :)
Just be careful with that. There are situations in which you clearly don't want --no-ff, see the "working on a topic branch on multiple boxes" example I gave in the mail I sent a minute ago. ;-)
Björn