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

  For list-related administrative tasks:

Reply via email to