On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:57:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The user could have said "git merge $(git rev-parse v1.0.0)"; we
> shouldn't mark it as "Merge commit '15999998fb...'" as the merge
> name, even though such an invocation might be crazy.
>
> We could even read the "tag " header from the tag object and replace
> the object name the user gave us, but let's not lose the information
> by doing so, at least not yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/merge.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
> index 0ec8f0d..990e90c 100644
> --- a/builtin/merge.c
> +++ b/builtin/merge.c
> @@ -516,6 +516,19 @@ static void merge_name(const char *remote, struct strbuf *msg)
> strbuf_release(&line);
> goto cleanup;
> }
> +
> + if (remote_head->util) {
> + struct merge_remote_desc *desc;
> + desc = merge_remote_util(remote_head);
> + if (desc && desc->obj && desc->obj->type == OBJ_TAG) {
> + strbuf_addf(msg, "%s\t\t%s '%s'\n",
> + sha1_to_hex(desc->obj->sha1),
> + typename(desc->obj->type),
> + remote);
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + }
> +
> strbuf_addf(msg, "%s\t\tcommit '%s'\n",
> sha1_to_hex(remote_head->object.sha1), remote);
I guess there is no other object type besides OBJ_TAG and OBJ_COMMIT
that would yield something we could merge, but it feels weird that you
check only for OBJ_TAG here, and otherwise still say "commit". Would the
intent be more clear if it just said:
if (desc && desc->obj && desc->obj->type != OBJ_COMMIT) {
...
?
-Peff
--
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