Subject: Re: git-merge-subordinate

From: Shawn Pearce <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:27:58 -0400

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> 
> > Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 
> > > 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 ;-)

And I would suggest calling it 'git-merge-rebase', as the strategy
really is rebase...  :-)

--