On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 15:02, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Todd A. Jacobs" <nospam+listmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I often find myself using "--no-ff -m foo" for merging short-lived
>> branches, because the merge commit usually needs to say something
>> about having finished a feature rather than referring to a branch that
>> will be deleted shortly anyway....
>> ... Is there currently a way to get git to prompt for the merge message,
>> rather than using the default or requiring the -m flag? If not, isn't
>> this a common-enough use case to have that ability added to the merge
>> function?
>
> Others commented on the current practices and gave their own useful tips
> already, but an additional hint is to name your branch more sensibly, so
> that you do not feel it is useless to record it in the history.
>
> As to a real longer-term solution, I wouldn't mind a patch that teaches
> "git merge" an "-e" option just like "git commit" has.
>
> $ git commit -m "Finish frotz feature" -e -a
> ... editor opens with the first line filled already here ...
>
> is something I find myself using fairly often.
What about adding something like:
if (isatty(0) && isatty(1) && isatty(2)) {
do_interactive_commit();
}
to git merge? I know the reason we don't want to do it all of the time
is because git merge is already used in a lot of scripts. But how many
of those are running with an active terminal on all 3 standard fds
when it runs git merge?
--
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