Thanks for the thoughts. I am not part of a team in this particular instance. And I am basically just learning git and perhaps how I, personally, want to use it for some of my own purposes. I tend to do a commit after each successful edit/compile/test cycle. Mainly so that I can change my mind easily. A sign of "ad hoc" design on my part, which I agree is not optimal or even very good/wise. The rebase seems like an interesting idea as well. The two books discourage it. But they are talking about rebasing a published repository which some one else may have cloned.
I tested the "git merge --squash" and it is just what I was looking for in my original scenario. On Monday, December 3, 2012 6:54:15 PM UTC-6, John McKown 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? > > --
