Re: merge confusion

[Tim Mazid <timmazid@hotmail.com>]

thepurpleblob wrote:
> 
> I had some unexpected behaviour doing a merge today. I wonder if anybody
> can tell me where I have gone wrong. This is the sequence...
> 
> * clone a remote repo
> * created a local branch to track one of the remote branches
> * did work on the local branch and then created another 'feature' branch
> from that
> * time elapsed and at some point(s) I pulled from the remote but did not
> merge the original local branch
> * finished feature, checkout local branch and merge in feature. 
> 
> What I didn't expect is that all the subsequent changes on the tracked
> remote branch got merged in too. Which I didn't want.
> So the question is - is that what's supposed to happen (ie. if you do any
> merge the tracked branch 'fast forwards' the remote) and, if so, if I want
> a branch that stays a branch (doesn't ever merge with the remote) how
> would I do that?
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Did you 'git pull' or 'git fetch'? 'git pull' automatically merges, where
'git fetch' only gets the data.
You can just do a 'git branch branch-to-merge COMMIT' then 'git merge
branch-to-merge' from your feature branch. Alternatively, you could just do
a straight 'git merge COMMIT' from your feature branch. Though I'm not sure
of the consequences of merging a commit instead of a branch.

Good luck,
Tim.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/merge-confusion-tp24755682p26093419.html
Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.