On 08/27/2012 11:30 AM, Fred wrote: > I have two remote branches master and branchB. > I've merged master into branchB with git checkout branchB && git merge > master.
o---o---o---o <- master \ \ o---o-------O <- branchB Merge is not quite a symmetric option. Think of the command "git merge master" as "merge the changes from master into the current branch", not "merge master and the current branch together". In this case, all of the commits from the master branch have been merged into branchB, but master is unchanged: it still points at the state of the master branch before the merge. By contrast, if you had done "git checkout master && git merge branchB", the result would be o---o---o---o---O <- master \ / o-----------o <- branchB Even though the *contents* of the two merge commits would probably be the same [1], there is a difference of whether master or branchB is pointed at the merge commit. For example, such a merge could arise in the following scenario: you are working on a feature branch separate from master, but it was necessary to merge changes from master into the feature branch to continue work on the (still unfinished) feature branch. In this situation, you definitely do *not* want the merge to cause the changes from branchB to be added to master. Michael [1] Except that the parent of the merge commits would be listed in different orders. -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
