Re: Multi-branch committing in git, revisited

Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sep 21, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Then they'd all be patched and staged.
> >>
> >> If I understand correctly, that 'git reset' will mark all branch changes
> >> as staged but not committed, and then you can commit all branches at
> >> once and push it. Is that right?
>
> > Right.
>
> You sure about the "staged" part? If I'm reading the git-reset man
> page correctly, this command will revert your commit position and index,
> leaving only the modified work files behind. So it looks to me like
> you need another round of git add, or at least git commit -a.

The command was:

git reset --soft HEAD^

The --soft says:

--soft
Does not touch the index file nor the working tree
at all, but requires them to be in a good order.
This leaves all your changed files "Changes to be
committed", as git status would put it.

and the HEAD^ is the same as HEAD^1, which is on commit backward from
HEAD. I assume ""Changes to be committed" means "staged".

> Offhand I think I like Andrew's recommendation of a shortlived branch
> better. In essence your idea is using the tip of "master" itself as a
> shortlived branch, which is maybe a bit too cute. If you get distracted

True.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +