From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Riesen Subject: Re: git merge --no-commit ; does commit Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:37:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20071215193741.GB3021@steel.home> References: <81b0412b0712131319h63609810m593f0e552d02a83c@mail.gmail.com> <20071214074925.GA3525@steel.home> Reply-To: Alex Riesen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Dressel X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Dec 15 20:38:15 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J3cpr-0001cv-RV for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:38:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754525AbXLOThq (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:37:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755979AbXLOThq (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:37:46 -0500 Received: from mo-p07-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.190]:64641 "EHLO mo-p07-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751933AbXLOThp (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:37:45 -0500 X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo07 X-RZG-AUTH: z4gQVF2k5XWuW3CculzxtozW3g== Received: from tigra.home (Faa31.f.strato-dslnet.de [195.4.170.49]) by post.webmailer.de (mrclete mo21) (RZmta 14.6) with ESMTP id 6069cbjBFHA8FK ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:37:42 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from: ) Received: from steel.home (steel.home [192.168.1.2]) by tigra.home (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153DC277AE; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:37:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by steel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F0B6156D22; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:37:41 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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 " does a merge of 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 (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 . > 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).