Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
> index 8850621..2f0a8fc 100644
> --- a/builtin/commit.c
> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static const char *logfile, *force_author;
> static const char *template_file;
> static char *edit_message, *use_message;
> static char *fixup_message, *squash_message;
> -static int all, edit_flag, also, interactive, only, amend, signoff;
> +static int all, edit_flag, also, interactive, only, amend, signoff, cherry_pick;
This doesn't belong here; it should come next to "in_merge" that marks us
to be "in the middle of concluding a merge", and it probably is better to
call it "in_cherry_pick" to be consistent.
> @@ -704,6 +704,15 @@ static int prepare_to_commit(const char *index_file, const char *prefix,
> "#\n",
> git_path("MERGE_HEAD"));
>
> + if (cherry_pick)
> + fprintf(fp,
> + "#\n"
> + "# It looks like you may be committing a cherry-pick.\n"
> + "# If this is not correct, please remove the file\n"
> + "# %s\n"
> + "# and try again.\n"
> + "#\n",
> + git_path("CHERRY_HEAD"));
Yeah, this shows clearly that in_merge is very similar to this new mode of
operation.
> @@ -929,6 +939,8 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[],
> die("You have nothing to amend.");
> if (amend && in_merge)
> die("You are in the middle of a merge -- cannot amend.");
> + if (amend && cherry_pick)
> + die("You are in the middle of a cherry-pick -- cannot amend.");
> if (fixup_message && squash_message)
> die("Options --squash and --fixup cannot be used together");
> if (use_message)
So does this.
Makes one wonder why the hunk that begins at line 609 special cases only
this new mode, no?
> @@ -943,11 +955,19 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[],
> die("Only one of -c/-C/-F/--fixup can be used.");
> if (message.len && f > 0)
> die("Option -m cannot be combined with -c/-C/-F/--fixup.");
> + if (cherry_pick) {
> + /* Let message-specifying options override CHERRY_HEAD */
> + if (f > 0 || message.len)
> + cherry_pick = 0;
> + else
> + /* used for authorship side-effect only */
> + use_message = "CHERRY_HEAD";
> + }
> if (edit_message)
> use_message = edit_message;
> if (amend && !use_message && !fixup_message)
> use_message = "HEAD";
> - if (!use_message && renew_authorship)
> + if (!use_message && !cherry_pick && renew_authorship)
> die("--reset-author can be used only with -C, -c or --amend.");
> if (use_message) {
> const char *out_enc;
Likewise. Perhaps these show that the way updated code uses the
use_message variable needs some rethinking.
> @@ -1118,6 +1138,7 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> gitmodules_config();
> git_config(git_status_config, &s);
> in_merge = file_exists(git_path("MERGE_HEAD"));
> + cherry_pick = file_exists(git_path("CHERRY_HEAD"));
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix,
> builtin_status_options,
> builtin_status_usage, 0);
> @@ -1140,7 +1161,7 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> }
>
> s.is_initial = get_sha1(s.reference, sha1) ? 1 : 0;
> - s.in_merge = in_merge;
> + s.in_merge = in_merge || cherry_pick;
Ugly. What does s.in_merge _MEAN_ after this patch gets applied?
I am not at all opposed to extending the semantics of an existing field of
the structure (i.e. "doing this and that when concluding a conflicted
merge made sense, and now we realize that doing exactly the same this and
that makes sense when concluding a conflicted cherry-pick" is perfectly
fine), but then that updated semantics should get a new name to cover both
old and new use scenario. You are _not_ in "in-merge" anymore but trying
to get a behaviour from other parts of the system that is similar to what
you would get when "in-merge". What is it? That is what you should base
the new name for the field on.
> @@ -1369,7 +1391,8 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> parents = reduce_heads(parents);
> } else {
> if (!reflog_msg)
> - reflog_msg = "commit";
> + reflog_msg = cherry_pick ? "commit (cherry-pick)"
> + : "commit";
This seems to indicate that we don't say "commit (merge)" when concluding
a conflicted merge. Shouldn't we?
--
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