On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jake & Phillip, > > On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018, Jacob Keller wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On 18/01/18 15:35, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> > >> >> > >> This patch adds the `merge` command, with the following syntax: >> > >> >> > >> merge <commit> <rev> <oneline> >> > > >> > > I'm concerned that this will be confusing for users. All of the other >> > > rebase commands replay the changes in the commit hash immediately >> > > following the command name. This command instead uses the first >> > > commit to specify the message which is different to both 'git merge' >> > > and the existing rebase commands. I wonder if it would be clearer to >> > > have 'merge -C <commit> <rev> ...' instead so it's clear which >> > > argument specifies the message and which the remote head to merge. >> > > It would also allow for 'merge -c <commit> <rev> ...' in the future >> > > for rewording an existing merge message and also avoid the slightly >> > > odd 'merge - <rev> ...'. Where it's creating new merges I'm not sure >> > > it's a good idea to encourage people to only have oneline commit >> > > messages by making it harder to edit them, perhaps it could take >> > > another argument to mean open the editor or not, though as Jake said >> > > I guess it's not that common. >> > >> > I actually like the idea of re-using commit message options like -C, >> > -c, and -m, so we could do: >> > >> > merge -C <commit> ... to take message from commit >> >> That is exactly how the Git garden shears do it. >> >> I found it not very readable. That is why I wanted to get away from it in >> --recreate-merges. > > I made up my mind. Even if it is not very readable, it is still better > than the `merge A B` where the order of A and B magically determines their > respective roles. > >> > merge -c <commit> ... to take the message from commit and open editor to edit >> > merge -m "<message>" ... to take the message from the quoted test >> > merge ... to merge and open commit editor with default message > > I will probably implement -c, but not -m, and will handle the absence of > the -C and -c options to construct a default merge message which can then > be edited. > > The -m option just opens such a can of worms with dequoting, that's why I > do not want to do that. > I agree, I don't see a need for "-m". > BTW I am still trying to figure out how to present the oneline of the > commit to merge (which is sometimes really helpful because the label might > be less than meaningful) while *still* allowing for octopus merges. > > So far, what I have is this: > > merge <original> <to-merge> <oneline> > > and for octopus: > > merge <original> "<to-merge> <to-merge2>..." <oneline>... > > I think with the -C syntax, it would become something like > > merge -C <original> <to-merge> # <oneline> > I like this, especially given you added the "#" for one of the other new commands as well, (reset I think?) > and > > merge -C <original> <to-merge> <to-merge2>... > # Merging: <oneline> > # Merging: <oneline2> > # ... > I really like this, since you can show each oneline for all the to-merges for an octopus. > The only qualm I have about this is that `#` really *is* a valid ref name. > (Seriously, it is...). So that would mean that I'd have to disallow `#` > as a label specifically. > > Thoughts? > I think it's fine to disallow # as a label. Thanks, Jake > Ciao, > Dscho
