On 21 May 2013 08:11, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK, I think what happened here was my fault, actually. The ultimate
>> result is what I'd intended, but not how I got there.
>>
>> I had a chain of two commits in the Inbox, call them I-528 and I-529.
>> I'd intended to merge I-528 into trunk and then I-529, so we could
>> track the two changes independently. I did the work of merging I-528
>> into my local trunk, but I think I failed to commit it.
>>
>> I think in future if I have multiple edits outstanding on the same
>> package I'll use an MC branch to isolate the changes. (It's not
>> practical to always submit single commits: you really want to commit
>> locally, and unwinding those commits into a single changeset you can
>> apply to a new, clean base image is... tiresome, manual, easy to mess
>> up.)
>
>
> Yeah, we may want to implement "merge --squash" at some point.


That and a "stash"/"stash pop" would go a long way towards making me happier.

frank