On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:39 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of >> moving to another machine and I don't want that commit to show up in >> the main repository? Is that possible? (My tree is currently in that >> state; it is one commit ahead of plt/master but that commit message is >> a lie-- I've just started to do that job; ordinarily I'd do git commit >> --amend to add more stuff to it, but now I'm worried about that.) > > Taking a step back: is there really anything wrong with such commits? Given > that drdr and e-mail alerts are based on pushes rather than commits, it seems > not unreasonable to just let those be intermediate commits. I can see that > it's a bit easier to give a nice name to a single big commit, but if the > alternative is the fancy dance that this thread is suggesting, it seems like > it might be simpler just to go with the simple solution (tautology alert).
IIUC, avoiding merges is actually the simpler solution overall. In this particular example, the merge came about because I issued the wrong command and Stevie pointed out that getting rid of it required running the same command that I should have run to get things in the right state in the first place. More generally, running "git pull" (just like that, without, say --ff-only or --rebase) is, I agree with Stevie, a bad idea (because it does two things: downloads and merges). If you're doing something complex like we're talking about you want to see the two steps one at a time as it is easier to fix problems after the first step before the second. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev