Re: [Q] merge squash unexpected conflicts

[Cory Sharp <cory.sharp@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michael J Gruber
<git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> Cory Sharp venit, vidit, dixit 14.05.2009 05:57:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Cory Sharp <cory.sharp@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Am I doing something a little wrong or unexpected?  Is there a way
>>>> around this squash conflict behavior?  This doesn't seem to happen
>>>> with plain merge without squash.
>>>
>>> Of course.  That's the whole point of recording a merge as a merge.
>>>
>>
>> $ git help merge
>>
>>   --squash
>>            Produce the working tree and index state as if a real merge
>> happened. ... This allows you to create a
>>            single commit on top of the current branch whose effect is
>> the same as merging another branch.
>
> The problem is simply in the "...". You cut out the vital part:
>
>
>        but do not actually make a commit or
>        move the `HEAD`, nor record `$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD` to
>        cause the next `git commit` command to create a merge
>        commit.
>
> See? Tree: yes, index: yes, merge info: no.
>
> Git does perform a (tree) merge with --squash, but records the resulting
> tree as an ordinary non-merge commit (with a single parent).
>
> I'm not sure whether the statement about the index is completely
> correct, though. During a merge the index records info about the merge
> (stages :1: etc.) but that as missing with --squash. Only the resulting
> tree is added to the index. How about the below?

Now I see, thanks for the help.  The elided part, at the time I elided
it, did not make me understand that merge info was not written,
particularly when surrounded by its original accompanying text.

Thanks again,
Cory