From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:19:54 GMT
Subject: Re: git-merge-subordinate
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0610251819080.3286@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <eho29l$1td$1@sea.gmane.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > Linus doesn't like seeing unnecessary merges in his tree.  I'm not a huge
> > fan of them either.  Wouldn't it be nice if we had a merge method that
> > did a merge without creating a merge?  I call it git-merge-subordinate
> > (since my tree is subordinate to the tree I'm pulling from).  I suppose
> > you could call it 'slave' if you want to be more pithy.  Anyway, this
> > is a first attempt, and it's totally cargo-cult programming; I make no
> > claim that I understand what I'm doing.  But it does seem to work.
> 
> Hmmm... the --squash option to git-merge/git-pull isn't enough?

What subordinate does is not _merge_, but _rebase_ on top of the fetched 
commit. So yes, --squash isn't enough ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho