From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Glanzmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-merge --squash Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:25:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20060623122501.GD15631@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <7virmscl2u.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vd5d09pe2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 23 14:25:15 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ftkig-0006qP-WA for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:25:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964777AbWFWMZE (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:25:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964779AbWFWMZE (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:25:04 -0400 Received: from faui03.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ([131.188.30.103]:10997 "EHLO faui03.informatik.uni-erlangen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964777AbWFWMZD (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:25:03 -0400 Received: by faui03.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 31401) id 5F58C305F9; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:25:01 +0200 (CEST) To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vd5d09pe2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11-2006-06-13 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hello Junio, > So in that sense I would imagine --squash is not really useless > in such a situation as I made it sound like, but at the same > time I suspect people might be better off to use tools like > StGIT which are specially designed to support such a workflow if > they were to do this. thanks for --squash. So --squash is basically a 'suck multiple deltas from another branch into ., but don't commit it'. I very often use that way of work flow. I do small and many commits, and when I am done I merge them to one a bit bigger one and submit it upstream. I useally use 'one branch per feature'. Thomas