Thanks. I either didn't see that in the books, or was asleep. I'll read up on it. On Dec 3, 2012 7:07 PM, "Ryan Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think what you're looking for is a squash merge. If you develop the > change in a dedicated feature branch like you describe, you can > transfer all of the changes to the master branch with the `--squash` > flag as follows: > > git checkout master > git merge --squash some-feature > > This concatenates all of your changes and adds it to the stage and > doesn't create any kind of connection between `some-feature` and > `master`. Then, you can run `git commit` to commit them to the master > branch. The result will be a single commit that represents your entire > feature. To delete all vestiges of the development work, just force > delete the feature branch with `git branch -D some-feature`. Then push > to the remote with a normal `git push`. > > Hope that helps. > > - Ryan > > > > On Dec 3, 2012 6:54 PM, "John McKown" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I've been reading "Version Control using git" (already finish Pro Git). > One thing the author said was that git really encourages developers to > commit frequently. Mainly because they have an entire (at the time) copy of > the repository. So there's not a lot of overhead of sending files across > the Internet (or Intranet). This sounds good to me. Basically, what I like > to do is: "until satisified do; edit; compile; test; commit; done " I do > this for every program. Once a "change" is complete, i.e. all programs and > files modified, and tested, I then do a "git push" to the repository. > > > > But it occurs to me that this is a lot of commits for what is logically > a single change. Would it be "better" to implement a single "change" as a > single, well documented, commit? If so, then how to eliminate all those > commits? What I've read says to do something like create a new branch; do > all your development and commits in that branch; then do a "git checkout" > back to "master" and do a single "git merge" of the new branch. The way > that I read the doc, what happens is that your branch remains and the > "master" branch commit has two parents. One from "master" the other from > the "change" branch. What I was thinking would be better would be to > completely remove all vestiges of the "change" branch. I think this can be > done by abusing git as follows: > > > > git tag starting > > git branch changes > > until satisfied; do edit; compile; test; commit; done #use the changes > branch for all development > > git merge --no-commit changes > > git branch -d changes > > git reset --soft starting > > git tag -d starting > > git commit #put in a single commit with very detailed documentation > > git push #push the change up to the origin > > > > Does this seem reasonable? Or am I entirely out of the ball park? > > > > -- > > > > > > -- > > > --
