# The --no-commit blues 3 messages from 2007-06-18 to 2007-06-19. Participants: Brian L. Troutwine, Alex Riesen, Sergio. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/8639 ## Brian L. Troutwine, 2007-06-18 15:06 Subject: The --no-commit blues Message-ID: <200706180806.26255.goofyheadedpunk@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200706180806.26255.goofyheadedpunk%40gmail.com ``` 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. Am I going about this the wrong way? What does --no-commit mean, if I am? (Also, I asked this on #git earlier. If anyone happens to idle there, pardon me for re-posting this so quickly. I've got terrible lag this morning, enough to time out frequently.) ``` ## Alex Riesen, 2007-06-18 16:04 Subject: Re: The --no-commit blues Message-ID: <81b0412b0706180904l52076d7l96797fee0deaf97c@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/81b0412b0706180904l52076d7l96797fee0deaf97c%40mail.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). ``` ## Sergio, 2007-06-19 08:52 Subject: Re: The --no-commit blues Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/loom.20070619T102934-84%40post.gmane.org In-Reply-To: <200706180806.26255.goofyheadedpunk@gmail.com> ``` Brian L. Troutwine gmail.com> writes: > > 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. > If you want the "whole" set of changes from inward to appear in outward as a /single/ commit with an appropriate commit message, probably you want to use also the --squash option of git merge. Otherwise, git will preserve the "structuring" of the history in many commits. This means that: - if outward does not need any real merge (because it only needs to be advanced to a newer status and not to join some changes of its own with changes from inward), git merge will make a "fast-forward". In other words, you will see outward becoming up to date without the need of any merge-commit at all. BTW that is why --no-commit appears to have no effect in this case: there wouldn't be any merge commit in any case. - if outward needs a real merge, then git merge will set up everything up to the point of making the merge commit. Then, depending on the presence of the --no-commit option it will or will not make the actual commit. > Am I going about this the wrong way? What does --no-commit mean, if I am? > > (Also, I asked this on #git earlier. If anyone happens to idle there, pardon > me for re-posting this so quickly. I've got terrible lag this morning, enough > to time out frequently.) ```