Why doesn't git know I merged? Is there a way to tell it?

Answer 1

I think it's because you used --squash. I'm not sure why you did, but you shouldn't need to. From the --squash documentation for git merge:

Produce the working tree and index state as if a real merge happened, but do not actually make a commit or move the HEAD, nor record $GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD to cause the next git commit command to create a merge commit. This allows you to create a single commit on top of the current branch whose effect is the same as merging another branch (or more in case of an octopus).

Basically, you need to do a "proper" merge. Squashing seems to have a rather specific usage situation (one that I've never had, so I can't really comment on why it's useful). I guess it's if you don't want the branch tree to look messy if you did some work in a branch but then decided to just merge it into a different branch that you're doing more overarching work in.

Answer 2

Just don't use git merge --squash :)

Answer 3

To add onto Peter Cooper's answer (comments weren't long enough):

git rebase --interactive (while chainsaw dangerous: see http://tomayko.com/writings/the-thing-about-git for more info and some background on why you'd ever want to use it) will let you squash and reorder individual commits before dcommitting them to svn. I use it a lot to help merge together 10-12 intermediate commits into 3-4 patchsets before dcommitting back to the repo.

Try git rebase --interactive HEAD~10 to interactively rebase the last 10 commits on your current branch. It's pretty rad once you learn it, and I use it daily on my git svn repo.

Answer 4

After you do your squash merge then you need to manually tell git about your merge because after you dcommit git forgets. The way to tell git manually about your merge is to use git grafts. link text