Re: The --no-commit blues

From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 18, 2007, 16:04 UTC
Message-ID: <81b0412b0706180904l52076d7l96797fee0deaf97c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200706180806.26255.goofyheadedpunk@gmail.com>

On 6/18/07, Brian L. Troutwine <goofyheadedpunk@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> I've got two branches, one which I commit to quite frequently and another only
> periodically, call them inward and outward. Inward is where I do my work,
> outward tracks an SVN repository. I'd like to merge inward to outward without
> committing the merge so that I may provide a commit message appropriate for
> checking in to the SVN repo.
>
> `git merge --no-commit inward' from branch outward, I thought, should do it.
> Performing a `git status' and a `git log' directly afterward seem to indicate
> that the merge was committed. `git commit' insists the branch is now up to
> date.

Either it was a fast-forward (IOW, the outward had no changes since you changed inward, and inward is derived from outward), or we have a bug (which I cannot reproduce).

> Am I going about this the wrong way? What does --no-commit mean, if I am?

exactly what it say: do not commit. Fast-forwards do not commit, just update your HEAD, index and working directory with the new changed (from inward in your case).