Subject: Re: git-merge-subordinate

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:11:05 +0200

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?

--squash::
        Produce the working tree and index state as if a real
        merge happened, 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.  This allows you to create a single commit on
        top of the current branch whose effect is the same as
        merging another branch (or more in case of an octopus).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git