Re: git-merge-subordinate
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2016-08-11 20:43:50
Hi, On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:quoted
Linus doesn't like seeing unnecessary merges in his tree. I'm not a huge fan of them either. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a merge method that did a merge without creating a merge? I call it git-merge-subordinate (since my tree is subordinate to the tree I'm pulling from). I suppose you could call it 'slave' if you want to be more pithy. Anyway, this is a first attempt, and it's totally cargo-cult programming; I make no claim that I understand what I'm doing. But it does seem to work.Hmmm... the --squash option to git-merge/git-pull isn't enough?
What subordinate does is not _merge_, but _rebase_ on top of the fetched commit. So yes, --squash isn't enough ;-) Ciao, Dscho