Re: git merge --no-commit <branch>; does commit

[Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>]

Michael Dressel, Sat, Dec 15, 2007 19:14:48 +0100:
>> 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?

Because merge, in Git language, means connection histories. That one
just mixes the text. That's different operation, kind of editing a
file.

> 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?

I would not recommend doing it at all. If I must, I'd rather use
git-rebase -i (interactive rebase).