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 17:49:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20090809214911.GA27796@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090809065936.GA24112@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vab29a1fr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090809074035.GA4778@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090809091443.GA676@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090809100045.GA25197@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090809100712.GA26250@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vprb47pam.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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 23:49:21 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 1MaGGW-0005pj-OC for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:49:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753723AbZHIVtM (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:49:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753700AbZHIVtM (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:49:12 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:45854 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753624AbZHIVtM (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:49:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 9366 invoked by uid 107); 9 Aug 2009 21:51:25 -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 17:51:25 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:49:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vprb47pam.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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 12:36:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Previously, merging a tag directly via "git merge tag" would > > get you the message "Merge commit 'tag'". It is a little > > more descriptive to note that it was actually a tag (i.e., > > "Merge tag 'tag'"). > > Maybe "Merge version 'v1.6.3'" or "Merge commit tagged as 'v1.6.3'"? > I dunno. Definitely "Merge version" is bad. Doing "git tag feature-x-working" and merging it would lead to "Merge version 'feature-x-working'", which doesn't really make sense. I don't think the developer would refer to such a tag as a "version". Your "Merge commit tagged as..." version is reasonable to me. I'm dubious whether the additional information that it was a tag is actually worth anything. That is, given (1) Merge commit '1234abcd' (2) Merge commit 'v1.6.3' (3) Merge tag 'v1.6.3' where (1) is what we do now and will do in the future for arbitrary commits, (2) is what we do now for tags, and (3) is the proposed change. I am not sure that (3) really tells the reader anything useful over the other two. And your "Merge commit tagged as" is just the same information written slightly differently. So maybe this patch should simply be dropped. I don't feel strongly either way. -Peff