From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] git-mergetool: show original branch names when possible Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:28:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7vabsmtxsg.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070820075318.GA12478@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 20 10:28:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IN2ct-0006uB-DH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:28:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755533AbXHTI2k (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:28:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755717AbXHTI2k (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:28:40 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:55252 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754401AbXHTI2j (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:28:39 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A04124B8D; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:28:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20070820075318.GA12478@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:53:18 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > 1. Is it OK to place the extra branch name information in MERGE_HEAD > after the SHA1? I do not think of anything that would barf offhand (we already do that in FETCH_HEAD), but this would definitely be carefully audited. > 2. It looks like doing an anonymous 'git-pull' leaves GITHEAD_* as the > commit sha1, which means you will end up with that sha1 rather than > 'REMOTE', which is less nice than the current behavior. Much less nice indeed. > It would be _really_ convenient in this case if we had a "git is in the > middle of something" file, which has been discussed before. > ... > there are some operations that persist across multiple command > invocations, and it would be nice rather than every command knowing > about every other command's implementation patterns ("Oh, you have a > .dotest file? You must be in the middle of...") to have a single place > with something like: > > $ cat .git/STATE > operation: merge > remote: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git > branch: master > branch: octopus It would be very nice, and I would encourage any wannabe Porcelain writers to go wild on this. One worry I have is if we would need to support nested states. "I was in the middle of 'foo' and then had to go sideways to do 'bar' which I am now in the middle of" kind of thing.