Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Distinguishing slight variation of modes of operation between the vanilla
> merge-recursive and merge-recursive-ours by the command name may have been
> an easy way to experiment, but we should bite the bullet and allow backend
> specific options to be given by the end user.
>
> (Patch originally by Junio Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Makefile | 3 ---
> builtin-merge-recursive.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> builtin-merge.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> t/t6034-merge-ours-theirs.sh | 4 ++--
> 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
You added .gitignore entries for the two programs previously, and are
removing them in this patch, but forgot to remove them from .gitignore in
this patch.
As I already suggested you to, if you squash this to the previous one, it
is not a big deal, though.
> diff --git a/builtin-merge.c b/builtin-merge.c
> index df089bb..9a95bc8 100644
> --- a/builtin-merge.c
> +++ b/builtin-merge.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,17 @@ static int option_parse_strategy(const struct option *opt,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int option_parse_x(const struct option *opt,
> + const char *arg, int unset)
> +{
> + if (unset)
> + return 0;
Should "merge --no-extended" silently be ignored, or be diagnosed as an
error?
> @@ -174,6 +185,8 @@ static struct option builtin_merge_options[] = {
> "abort if fast-forward is not possible"),
> OPT_CALLBACK('s', "strategy", &use_strategies, "strategy",
> "merge strategy to use", option_parse_strategy),
> + OPT_CALLBACK('X', "extended", &xopts, "option=value",
> + "option for selected merge strategy", option_parse_x),
I actually didn't name X for "extended" but more for "external" (to the
merge program proper). "--strategy-option" perhaps?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html