On Sep 16, 5:01 pm, Donovan Bray wrote:
> Why do you do this?
>
> Or if you want to be really clean rebase _work_ and squeeze all of the
> commits into a single commit then merge into master.
>
hi Donovan,
this is exactly what I do. But git beginner as I am, I thought that
the best way to merg
thanks Mike and Konstantin,
this was exactly what I needed to hear. I only wanted a fast forward.
But as you say, that is what git merge does. A step forward on my git
path.
As I reply, the sun starts to shine and lights the complete room. Who
said that coincidence doesn't exist?
regards, Ruud
On Sep 16, 3:11 pm, "Michael P. Soulier"
wrote:
>> I forgot to mention the work branch is based on master. It is one or
>> more commits ahead. I only want to move the master head to the work
>> head.
> That's what merge is for. Why would you use reset?
Also I should note that Git is smart about
On 16/09/10 ruud said:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I forgot to mention the work branch is based on master. It is one or
> more commits ahead. I only want to move the master head to the work
> head.
That's what merge is for. Why would you use reset?
Mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Are you the only one to work on these branches? If not, you loose the
work other have done.
-*--*--*--*--< master
\-*--*--*--< work
A "reset --hard work" with branches like above loose the 3 commits
made on master and simply make master to refer to the same commit than
work.
If you are alone,
Hi Michael,
I forgot to mention the work branch is based on master. It is one or
more commits ahead. I only want to move the master head to the work
head.
regards, Ruud
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To post to this g
