On 7 July 2010 02:12, Eric Raible <raible@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It might be just a simple matter of ...
>>
>> wt-status.c | 2 ++
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
>> index 2f9e33c..757536f 100644
>> --- a/wt-status.c
>> +++ b/wt-status.c
>> @@ -674,6 +674,8 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
>> fprintf(s->fp, "# No changes\n");
>> else if (s->nowarn)
>> ; /* nothing */
>> + else if (s->in_merge)
>> + printf("merge result will be the same as HEAD commit\n");
>> else if (s->workdir_dirty)
>> printf("no changes added to commit%s\n",
>> advice_status_hints
>
> I suppose that's better than nothing, but I can't help but think that
> the output would be more useful if it explicitly mentioned the merge.
>
> Most sensible people probably already have that in their bash prompt,
> of course, but we have some users at $dayjob who use the anemic
> windows cmd.exe as their "command shell".
>
> So how about something like this:
>
> $ git status
> # Merging branch 'master' into topic
> # Changes to be committed:
> #
> # modified: file2
>
> The "branch 'master' into topic" part can come
> from .git/MERGE_MSG
+1
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
--
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