Differences between Git merge --squash and --no-commit

git merge squash
quaylar picture quaylar · Mar 7, 2012 · Viewed 41k times · Source

As the title says, I am not really clear about the differences between a git merge --squash and a git merge --no-commit.

As far as I understand the help page for git merge, both commands would leave me in an updated working-tree, where it is still possible to edit and then to do a final commit (or multiple commits).

Could someone clarify the differences of those 2 options? When would I use one instead of the other?

Answer

ralphtheninja picture ralphtheninja · Mar 7, 2012 
git merge --no-commit

This is just like a normal merge but doesn't create a merge-commit. This commit will be a merge commit: when you look at the history, your commit will appear as a normal merge.

git merge --squash

This will merge the changes into your working tree without creating a merge commit. When you commit the merged changes, it will look like a new "normal" commit on your branch: without a merge commit in the history. It's almost like you did a cherry-pick on all the merged changes.

Related questions

In git, what is the difference between merge --squash and rebase?

I'm new to git and I'm trying to understand the difference between a squash and a rebase. As I understand it you perform a squash when doing a rebase.

Read More
git rebase interactive: squash merge commits together

I wanted to have a simple solution to squash two merge commits together during an interactive rebase. My repository looks like: X --- Y --------- M1 -------- M2 (my-feature) / / / / / / a --- b --- c --- d --- e --- f (…

Read More
What are the differences between `--squash` and `--no-ff --no-commit`?

Which one should one use to hide microcommits? Is the only difference between git merge --squash and git merge --no-ff --no-commit the denial of the other parents?

Read More