Re: Multi-branch committing in git, revisited

Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.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
tobe in a good order.              This leaves all your changed files "Changes to be              committed", as git
statuswould 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@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +