Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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) {
> ...
>
> ?
I suspect not.
The point of the added code is that it knows we want to special case
merging a tag object, and it wants to keep any other case behaving
the same as before.
--
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