git merge –no-commit vs git cherry-pick –no-commit

Is there any difference between git merge --no-commit and git cherry-pick --no-commit?

And is there any difference in history if I commit after these two commands?

  • Remove an unwanted merge commit and rebase instead with Git
  • Git External Resource into Dev Branch Automatically
  • Can I merge a branch from the future at a commit in the past without merging the shared commits between them, or without cherry-pick?
  • Merging Extensive Changes with Git
  • Git: pre-receive hook to allow only merges and not direct commits into master
  • Why can’t you merge in a bare git repo?
  • Have I been pushing my Git dev branches to master all this time?
  • Why am I merging “remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into develop”?
  • 2 Solutions collect form web for “git merge –no-commit vs git cherry-pick –no-commit”

    If you commit after git merge --no-commit, you’ll actually get a merge commit. Whereas after a git cherry-pick --no-commit you’ll get a commit with a single parent.

    Hence, yes, there is a difference between those two commands.

    In particular if you have something like

    A -- B -- C
     \        L HEAD
       -- D -- E

    If you cherry-pick commit E, you won’t get modifications of commit D. Whereas if you merge, you’ll get both.

    While git-merge is used to join two or more development histories together, git-cherry-pick is used to apply changes introduced by some existing commits.

    So then, once you commit after performing a git-merge, Git will add what’s called a merge commit. In the other side, when cherry-pick(ing) commits, git will apply the changes introduced by these commits on the top of your working tree (There’s no fusion between two or many branches). Put another way, Commits are cloned and put on top of your branch.

    Take a look at Git Cherry-pick vs Merge Workflow to undestand the differences based on a repo maintainer real needs.

    Git Baby is a git and github fan, let's start git clone.