On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Â- "git commit --amend" to say "I'm done fixing the broken thing".
>
> Â- "git commit --fixup=HEAD/--squash=HEAD" to say "done fixing;
> Â let's look at this again later and squash it when I am less
> Â confused".
>
> Both are mistakes if HEAD is the previous and good commit rather than
> the broken one. ÂMaybe there is some simple safety that could protect
> against them?
As you see below, this is already protected against.
>> Â--reset-author::
>> - Â Â When used with -C/-c/--amend options, declare that the
>> - Â Â authorship of the resulting commit now belongs of the committer.
>> - Â Â This also renews the author timestamp.
>> + Â Â When used with -C/-c/--amend options, or when committing after a
>> + Â Â a conflicting cherry-pick,
>
> or when committing after a conflicted merge, no?
No. The person committing a merge is already the author of the merge,
why would they use --reset-author?
>
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âdeclare that the authorship of the
>> + Â Â resulting commit now belongs of the committer. This also renews
>> + Â Â the author timestamp.
>
> How does it interact with --author?
No change from before, --author forces the author of the new commit.
>> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> [...]
>> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static int prepare_to_commit(const char *index_file, const char *prefix,
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â die_errno("could not read log file '%s'",
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â logfile);
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â hook_arg1 = "message";
>> - Â Â } else if (use_message) {
>> + Â Â } else if (use_message && !cherry_pick) {
>
> Wouldn't this make
>
> Â Â Â Âgit commit -C foo
>
> after a failed cherry-pick use MERGE_MSG instead of the message the
> user requested?
No, because the -C will force the cherry_pick flag to 0 in
parse_and_validate_options:
/* Let message-specifying options override CHERRY_HEAD */
I'll make this logic clearer though as I need to address Junio's
earlier message.
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â if (cherry_pick)
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â fprintf(fp,
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "#\n"
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "# It looks like you may be committing a cherry-pick.\n"
>
> Aside: shouldn't we suggest some porcelain-ish command (git merge
> --clear? Âgit commit --no-merge?) to remove .git/MERGE_HEAD instead of
> asking the committer to do it?
We have git merge --reset as an alias for reset --merge. Since reset
--merge takes care of this case too (I think, I'll check) we can
suggest that for both.
> This section is used to give a preview and sanity check for the
> commit.
>
> Â- if we are on the wrong branch, that might be a mistake.
> Â- if the author is someone else, that might be a mistake.
> Â- if there are multiple parents, that might be a mistake.
> Â- if there are changes included, some might be mistakes.
> Â- if there are changes excluded, some might be mistakes,
> Â- if there are untracked files, some might be mistakes.
>
> Where does committing a cherry-pick fall into that picture? ÂMaybe
>
> Â Â Â Â# Author: Â ÂA U Thor <author@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Â Â Â Â# Date: Â Â ÂTue Beb 9 01:23:45 1911 -0500
> Â Â Â Â#
> Â Â Â Â# If this is not correct, please try again using the
> Â Â Â Â# --author and --date or --reset-author options.
Okay.
>> @@ -898,6 +907,7 @@ static void handle_untracked_files_arg(struct wt_status *s)
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â die("Invalid untracked files mode '%s'", untracked_files_arg);
>> Â}
>>
>> +
>
> Stray whitespace change?
Indeed.
> How can I get out of this state if I really do want to amend?
git reset, same as it ever was?
>> @@ -943,11 +955,19 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[],
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â die("Only one of -c/-C/-F/--fixup can be used.");
>> Â Â Â if (message.len && f > 0)
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â die("Option -m cannot be combined with -c/-C/-F/--fixup.");
>> + Â Â if (cherry_pick) {
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â /* Let message-specifying options override CHERRY_HEAD */
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â if (f > 0 || message.len)
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â cherry_pick = 0;
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â else
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /* used for authorship side-effect only */
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â use_message = "CHERRY_HEAD";
>> + Â Â }
>
> Hmm, what if I have commits F and F' and after trying to cherry-pick F
> I decide I want the message from F'?
I don't think I understand. commit -c F', or just commit (w/o options)
and you get MERGE_MSG generated by cherry-pick.
>> @@ -1118,6 +1138,7 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> Â Â Â gitmodules_config();
>> Â Â Â git_config(git_status_config, &s);
>> Â Â Â in_merge = file_exists(git_path("MERGE_HEAD"));
>> + Â Â cherry_pick = file_exists(git_path("CHERRY_HEAD"));
>
> Is it possible to be both in_merge and cherry_pick?
No, I need to rework this into an enum, maybe enum { CONFLICT_NONE,
CONFLICT_MERGE, CONFLICT_CHERRY_PICK } conflict_type.
>> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â reflog_msg = "commit";
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â reflog_msg = cherry_pick ? "commit (cherry-pick)"
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â: "commit";
>
> Nice. ÂProbably worth mentioning in the commit message.
>
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â elif [ -f "$g/CHERRY_HEAD" ]; then
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â r="|CHERRY-PICKING"
>
> Likewise.
Right.
Thanks for the feedback!
j.
--
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