Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane<[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... but I'm not at all excited about cluttering the
>> long-term project history with a zillion micro-commits. One of the
>> things I find most annoying about reviewing the current commit history
>> is that Bruce has taken a micro-commit approach to managing the TODO
>> list --- I was seldom so happy as the day that disappeared from CVS,
>> because of the ensuing reduction in noise level.
For better or worse, git also includes a command "git-rebase" that can
collapse such micro-commits into a larger one.
Quoting the git-rebase man page:
A range of commits could also be removed with rebase. If we have the
following situation:
E---F---G---H---I---J topicA
then the command
git-rebase --onto topicA~5 topicA~3 topicA
would result in the removal of commits F and G:
E---H´---I´---J´ topicA
While I wouldn't recommend using this for historical revisionism, I
imagine it could be useful during code-review time when the
micro-commits (from both the patch submitter and patch reviewer)
are interesting. After the review, the commits could be collapsed
into meaningful-sized-chunks just before they're merged into the
official branches.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
