From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Also read SQUASH_MSG if a conflict on a merge squash occurred Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:32:51 -0800 Message-ID: References: <56DAB71E.6000509@cs-ware.de> <56DE5272.2080009@cs-ware.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Git List To: Sven Strickroth X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 08 19:33:00 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adMRH-0004lN-5l for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 19:32:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750848AbcCHSc4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:32:56 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:64515 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750701AbcCHScy (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:32:54 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1182E49A08; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:32:53 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=gaL9bA2YGR8/DmyiuCEqZ9U4TVU=; b=CMpdJt YbPeb6js2+w5jFOoxDs8dDH1ujKCDYdaY7znMoT4rA276d+e/WHLZOYe/UD3DF4Z NdSkbQJAzM3nECtF3FbDYg1VbuOOyHTOv1oJenEx4t9FNg0fAODBxCsxfa4VTHnk EOWdbW2WyZHgxbDM/SMMXy1cDBWO/aM2F4nDQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=PYZqFQLpKCe6p1oK9keNjimkay50fPue eHs1qjiByuLMn7Pa7/u4bJGaUfhMSepW5blFpNj8vPfdxDu8VF6Ueqb6PA7ibgN4 i6U8iuiOPhPrNbUZXjstPHHxr8Zrd5PnN8euuj5nwBEYqqAFvo7Tv6hN5qaEsBOV zVQoUuVIe9M= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0840A49A07; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.1.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 665AE49A04; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:32:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <56DE5272.2080009@cs-ware.de> (Sven Strickroth's message of "Tue, 8 Mar 2016 05:17:54 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2AE8E3D0-E55C-11E5-9A92-79226BB36C07-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sven Strickroth writes: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Also read SQUASH_MSG if a conflict on a merge squash occurred A reader sees this line in the output of "git shortlog --no-merges"; does it sufficiently tell her which Git subcommand is affected by this change, if this is a bugfix or a new feature, i.e. enough for her to decide how important the change is? We often prefix our log message with the name of the area followed by a colon and describe the purpose of the change, not the means how the objective is achieved, e.g. Subject: [PATCH] commit: do not lose SQUASH_MSG contents When concluding a conflicted "git merge --squash", the command failed to read SQUASH_MSG that was prepared by "git merge", and showed only the "# Conflicts:" list of conflicted paths. > diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c > index d054f84..0405d68 100644 > --- a/builtin/commit.c > +++ b/builtin/commit.c > @@ -729,6 +729,12 @@ static int prepare_to_commit(const char *index_file, const char *prefix, > if (strbuf_read_file(&sb, git_path_merge_msg(), 0) < 0) > die_errno(_("could not read MERGE_MSG")); > hook_arg1 = "merge"; > + /* append SQUASH_MSG here if it exists and a merge --squash was originally performed */ /* * Our multi-line comment reads more like * this. That is, the first slash-asterisk is on its * own line, so is the last asterisk-slash. */ > + if (!stat(git_path_squash_msg(), &statbuf)) { > + if (strbuf_read_file(&sb, git_path_squash_msg(), 0) < 0) > + die_errno(_("could not read SQUASH_MSG")); > + hook_arg1 = "squash"; > + } > } else if (!stat(git_path_squash_msg(), &statbuf)) { > if (strbuf_read_file(&sb, git_path_squash_msg(), 0) < 0) > die_errno(_("could not read SQUASH_MSG")); This reads MERGE_MSG first and then SQUASH_MSG; is that what we really want? When you are resolving a conflicted rebase, you would see the original log message and then conflicts section. What is in the SQUASH_MSG is the moral equivalent of the "original log message" but in a less summarized form, so I suspect that the list of conflicts should come to end. The duplicated code to read the same file bothers me somewhat. I wondered if it makes the result easier to follow (and easier to update) if this part of the code is restructured like this: if (file_exists(git_path_merge_msg()) || file_exists(git_path_squash_msg())) { if (file_exists(git_path_squash_msg())) { read SQUASH_MSG; } if (file_exists(git_path_merge_msg())) read MERGE_MSG; } hook_arg1 = "merge"; } but I am not sure if that structure is better. Thanks.