Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
As the title says, I am not really clear about the differences between a git merge --squash and a git merge --no-commit.
As far as I understand the help page for git merge, both commands would leave me in an updated working-tree, where it is still possible to edit and then to do a final commit (or multiple commits).
Could someone clarify the differences of those 2 options? When would I use one instead of the other?
This is just like a normal merge but doesn’t create a merge-commit. This commit will be a merge commit: when you look at the history, your commit will appear as a normal merge.
This will merge the changes into your working tree without creating a merge commit. When you commit the merged changes, it will look like a new "normal" commit on your branch: without a merge commit in the history. It’s almost like you did a cherry-pick on all the merged changes.