3 ms·

It probably is in the same sense that 'git rebase -i' often puts the new branch on a new base even if that wasn't your explicit intention. Usually merge squashe

It probably is in the same sense that 'git rebase -i' often puts the new branch on a new base even if that wasn't your explicit intention. Usually merge squashes are reparented to the current head of the target branch. But my point was just that a merge squash is just a specific incantation of the git-rebase tool. And it is one of the most history destroying incantations, rather than the least.

steveklabnik 10y ago
Ah, sorry, I'm probably mis-understanding a "squash merge". I thought you meant you have a graph like this: C -> D -> E / A -> B then you "squash merge" S------ / \ A -> B -> F where S is C + D + E. Whereas a rebase + (now fast-forward) merge would be A -> B -> C' -> D' -> E' and, if squashed during rebase -i or by some other means A -> B -> S It seems you're saying a "squash merge" is the last one, I thought it was the second one.
- stormbrew 10y ago
  I'm sure someone out there does it like that (the joy and pain of git being there's a million ways of doing things), but the name I think is derived from the idea that you're replacing a merge commit with a squash of the disjoint parent, rather than a merge of a squash. Also it's entirely possible I'm wrong, I'm a fan of merge bubbles (sometimes rebased for clarity), and avoid large squashes in general, so maybe I just don't understand how people do it. I don't know why you'd bother to keep both a merge and squash commit around, though.
  - steveklabnik 10y ago
    No, I think you're right; take a look at the graphs on https://github.com/blog/2141-squash-your-commits https://github.com/blog/2141-squash-your-commits for example. I don't know why you'd want to do it that way either! But I also don't understand why you'd want to "never rebase", so when it comes to git, I assume that someone has reasons for doing all kinds of things I don't understand.
- tomstuart 10y ago
  That’s right. `git merge --squash` doesn’t even make a commit, it just updates the working tree and index to look like the post-merge contents — it’s then up to you to actually commit. So yeah, you don’t even end up with a merge commit.
  - steveklabnik 10y ago
    Ah ha! TIL. Thank you! (One thing I really love about git is that it's a tool I use extremely often (it's something like, 20% of the commands I run in my terminal), yet I learn something new and useful all the time.)

steveklabnik 10y ago

Ah, sorry, I'm probably mis-understanding a "squash merge". I thought you meant you have a graph like this: C -> D -> E / A -> B then you "squash merge" S------ / \ A -> B -> F where S is C + D + E. Whereas a rebase + (now fast-forward) merge would be A -> B -> C' -> D' -> E' and, if squashed during rebase -i or by some other means A -> B -> S It seems you're saying a "squash merge" is the last one, I thought it was the second one.

stormbrew 10y ago
I'm sure someone out there does it like that (the joy and pain of git being there's a million ways of doing things), but the name I think is derived from the idea that you're replacing a merge commit with a squash of the disjoint parent, rather than a merge of a squash. Also it's entirely possible I'm wrong, I'm a fan of merge bubbles (sometimes rebased for clarity), and avoid large squashes in general, so maybe I just don't understand how people do it. I don't know why you'd bother to keep both a merge and squash commit around, though.
- steveklabnik 10y ago
  No, I think you're right; take a look at the graphs on https://github.com/blog/2141-squash-your-commits https://github.com/blog/2141-squash-your-commits for example. I don't know why you'd want to do it that way either! But I also don't understand why you'd want to "never rebase", so when it comes to git, I assume that someone has reasons for doing all kinds of things I don't understand.
tomstuart 10y ago
That’s right. `git merge --squash` doesn’t even make a commit, it just updates the working tree and index to look like the post-merge contents — it’s then up to you to actually commit. So yeah, you don’t even end up with a merge commit.
- steveklabnik 10y ago
  Ah ha! TIL. Thank you! (One thing I really love about git is that it's a tool I use extremely often (it's something like, 20% of the commands I run in my terminal), yet I learn something new and useful all the time.)