From: Michael Dressel <michaeltilodressel@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:14:48 GMT
Subject: Re: git merge --no-commit <branch>; does commit
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.0.99999.0712151905280.4341@castor.milkiway.cos>
In-Reply-To: <20071214074925.GA3525@steel.home>



On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:

> Michael Dressel, Thu, Dec 13, 2007 22:28:30 +0100:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2007, Michael Dressel wrote:
>>>> git merge --no-commit <branch> does "create" a commit. At lesat the
>>>> head and index are moved to the new commit fetched from <branch>. Maybe
>>>> that is because git was able to do a fast forward?
>>>
>>> Yes. Because fast-forward is what it called: fast-forward.
>>> It does not do any commits at all.
>>>
>>
>> It looks like I misunderstood the meaning of --no-commit. I have to use
>> --squash in this case.
>>
>
> Maybe. Or maybe you misunderstood the meaning of --squash, which also
> is not a merge.

Since "git merge --squash <branch>" does a merge of <branch> into the 
working tree why would you not call it a merge?
Anyway that was what I wanted. Merging <branch> (a topic branch) into my 
current branch (the main branch) but being able to create commits that are
more suitable for keeping in the history of the current branch than the
commits I created during developing on <branch>.
Would you recommend a different way of doing this?

Thank you,
Michael