From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Merging using only fast-forward Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:31:11 -0800 Message-ID: <7vwsq9o6ls.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <863asxivlj.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sverre Hvammen Johansen , git@vger.kernel.org To: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 16 21:31:53 2008 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 1JFEvN-0000s6-F5 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:31:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752064AbYAPUbU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:31:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752014AbYAPUbU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:31:20 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:65372 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751269AbYAPUbU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:31:20 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586894A70; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B584A6C; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:31:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <863asxivlj.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> (Randal L. Schwartz's message of "Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:27:52 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: > Junio implemented a 7-line patch on the IRC channel (calling parts of it > "for randal" or something, I believe :) to do precisely this. > > Perhaps you can test it, and submit it as if it were your idea. I, for one, > would use it as well. I'm doing ugly things with parsing the output of > git-status right now to achieve the same thing. The mechanism itself is simple. http://git.pastebin.com/m156a1856 A sane integration is a different story. We have --ff and --no-ff options to merge. How should this new option --ff-only mesh with them? Perhaps we would want to have an option --ff that takes three values? --ff=never --ff=normal --ff=only and have the first one be synonym for existing --no-ff, the second one to be a synonym for not giving anything (or giving --ff explicitly), and the third one to be this new mode of operation?