From: Tim Mazid Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:01:24 GMT Subject: Re: merge confusion Message-ID: <26093419.post@talk.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <24755682.post@talk.nabble.com> thepurpleblob wrote: > > I had some unexpected behaviour doing a merge today. I wonder if anybody > can tell me where I have gone wrong. This is the sequence... > > * clone a remote repo > * created a local branch to track one of the remote branches > * did work on the local branch and then created another 'feature' branch > from that > * time elapsed and at some point(s) I pulled from the remote but did not > merge the original local branch > * finished feature, checkout local branch and merge in feature. > > What I didn't expect is that all the subsequent changes on the tracked > remote branch got merged in too. Which I didn't want. > So the question is - is that what's supposed to happen (ie. if you do any > merge the tracked branch 'fast forwards' the remote) and, if so, if I want > a branch that stays a branch (doesn't ever merge with the remote) how > would I do that? > > Thanks! > Did you 'git pull' or 'git fetch'? 'git pull' automatically merges, where 'git fetch' only gets the data. You can just do a 'git branch branch-to-merge COMMIT' then 'git merge branch-to-merge' from your feature branch. Alternatively, you could just do a straight 'git merge COMMIT' from your feature branch. Though I'm not sure of the consequences of merging a commit instead of a branch. Good luck, Tim. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/merge-confusion-tp24755682p26093419.html Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.