On 08/21/2015 03:21 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> writes:Hmm, it occurs to me that a squash commit (or series of commits) followed by a merge -s ours could have the advantages of both approaches: the patches land on trunk in a sensible order, but the history is available.That would be worse, since changes are duplicated.
How duplicated? The non-squash merge would make no changes, only express that the branch is now merged.
Jason
