Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers