Re: [Omaha.pm] [OMG!Code] git merge, I love you

[Jay Hannah <jay@jays.net>]

On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Michael Kolakowski <mkolakow@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you explain why you did a fast forward only merge? I almost always do my merges/pulls as --no-ff in order to preserve history, especially when it comes to branches. At least that's how I understood things to work.

I always use one of these two:

--no-ff    make damn sure I get an explicit commit. I always do this in local branch merges so I'm 'git flux' compatible (http://sartak.org/drafts/git-flux.html)

--ff-only  make damn sure I don't get an explicit commit. For when my local copy is "old" and I'm "catching up" to something authoritative. 

"hey git: Don't guess or be clever -- I'm expecting X, so if X is not possible just say so and exit without doing anything."

I don't know if this is Right, Wrong, or Indifferent...  :)

Discussing with Nick Nisi at Coworking Wednesday yesterday we talked about:

> git remote add abw git@github.com:abw/Template2.git 

'upstream' might have been the "Correct" conventional name for that (not 'abw').

> git merge --ff-only abw/master 

In that exact scenario

   git rebase abw/master

would have done the same thing. We think. Untested.  :)

"git is easy!"   lol

j