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. +