Re: git-merge-subordinate
Show 7 quoted lines
> 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?
--squash::
Produce the working tree and index state as if a real
merge happened, but do not actually make a commit or
move the `HEAD`, nor record `$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD` to
cause the next `git commit` command to create a merge
commit. This allows you to create a single commit on
top of the current branch whose effect is the same as
merging another branch (or more in case of an octopus).--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>