From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge: indicate remote tracking branches in merge message Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:14:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20090809091443.GA676@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090809065936.GA24112@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vab29a1fr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090809074035.GA4778@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 09 11:14:59 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ma4UU-0007cL-AO for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:14:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753389AbZHIJOq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:14:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753387AbZHIJOq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:14:46 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:41451 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751674AbZHIJOp (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:14:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 2875 invoked by uid 107); 9 Aug 2009 09:16:58 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:16:58 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:14:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090809074035.GA4778@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 03:40:35AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Shouldn't it instead feed what it got from the end user to the dwim > > machinery, and make sure it dwims into refs/remotes/ hierarchy? > > I'm not sure that is all that different in practice than what is > happening now. Mainly I did it the way I did so that I didn't touch the > code path for detecting local branches. > > But assuming they are functionally identical, I think your patch is much > more readable. I tested your patch; the two methods aren't identical. In fact, yours fixes a bug. :) In t4202, we have a branch name and a tag name that are the same (octopus-a), and we "git merge octopus-a". This actually merges the tag, but because the branch name existed, we write "Merge branch 'octopus-a'" in the log, which is not true. With your patch, it does the right thing and says "Merge commit 'octopus-a'". The simple thing is to just update the "expect" text. Though the current behavior does show off the ability to collape the two branches and say Merge branches 'octopus-a' and 'octopus-b' instead of Merge commit 'octopus-a'; commit 'octopus-b' which we could preserve that by renaming the tags, as below. --- diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh index 48e0088..9d0db2a 100755 --- a/t/t4202-log.sh +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh @@ -306,13 +306,13 @@ test_expect_success 'set up more tangled history' ' git checkout master && git merge tangle && git checkout -b reach && - test_commit reach && + test_commit reach-1 && git checkout master && git checkout -b octopus-a && - test_commit octopus-a && + test_commit octopus-a-1 && git checkout master && git checkout -b octopus-b && - test_commit octopus-b && + test_commit octopus-b-1 && git checkout master && test_commit seventh && git merge octopus-a octopus-b @@ -327,12 +327,12 @@ cat > expect <<\EOF *-. \ Merge branches 'octopus-a' and 'octopus-b' |\ \ \ * | | | seventh -| | * | octopus-b +| | * | octopus-b-1 | |/ / |/| | -| * | octopus-a +| * | octopus-a-1 |/ / -| * reach +| * reach-1 |/ * Merge branch 'tangle' |\