From: Alex Riesen Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:04:03 GMT Subject: Re: The --no-commit blues Message-ID: <81b0412b0706180904l52076d7l96797fee0deaf97c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200706180806.26255.goofyheadedpunk@gmail.com> On 6/18/07, Brian L. Troutwine wrote: > 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).