From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:46
Cory Sharp [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
If you want support for repeated merges by merge tracking, you do not want
todiscard the merge history by using --squash.
Why doesn't --squash do merge tracking? The help didn't indicate that
it doesn't, and I don't understand why ...
Because "merge" is (no surprise) what tracks what (two or more) things
were merged. And with --squash you are choosing not to make a merge. I
am not sure if there is any more thing to be explained...
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Because "merge" is (no surprise) what tracks what (two or more) things
were merged. And with --squash you are choosing not to make a merge. I
am not sure if there is any more thing to be explained...
Yeah I'm not quite getting it. Thanks for trying to explain, though.
From: Michael Radziej <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:46
On Wed, May 13, Cory Sharp wrote:
Yeah I'm not quite getting it. Thanks for trying to explain, though.
git merge --squash is not a merge at all. It only creates a regular commit
with one parent. It is useful only in very special circumstances.
Michael
--
noris network AG - Deutschherrnstraße 15-19 - D-90429 Nürnberg -
Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100
http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company
Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk -
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Michael Radziej [off-list ref] wrote:
git merge --squash is not a merge at all. ...
It is useful only in very special circumstances.
You're right. I (incorrectly) thought I had to use --squash to
properly interface with an svn branch and trunk through git-svn. I
thought not using squash would trigger hundreds of commits - it
doesn't, nice things happen with just "merge".
Thanks everyone for helping me,
Cory