From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-merge --squash Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:11:26 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwtb78o2p.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7virmscl2u.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vd5d09pe2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060623122501.GD15631@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Glanzmann , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 24 01:11:49 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 1FtuoF-000367-Tj for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:11:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752167AbWFWXL3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:11:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752169AbWFWXL2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:11:28 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao09.cox.net ([68.230.241.30]:47612 "EHLO fed1rmmtao09.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752167AbWFWXL2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:11:28 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060623231127.QOIA1341.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:11:27 -0400 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:36:11 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Isn't this the same as 'git-cherry-pick -n'? I often do a poor man's StGIT > by cherry picking my way through a messy branch, often combining patches > by '-n'. Operationally, it probably is equivalent to the repeated use of 'cherry-pick -n' for all commits on a topic, but that would risk you having to resolve conflicts unnecessarily when you are shooting for as the result is a single commit, because you would have to do N merges with that workflow. Squashing is about merging the tip of the topic into mainline, so the conflict resolution needs to be done only once.