Hi Leif, On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Leif Middelschulte <leif.middelschulte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Leif Middelschulte <Leif.Middelschulte@xxxxxxxxx> > > Since submodules are treated similarly to ordinary files (i.e. not as 'dumb' > pointers), an automatic merge should be mentioned if the user asks for it. > Just as it is mentioned for oridnary files. Thanks for following up; sorry it took me a few days to respond. However, it looks like Junio merged the sb/submodule-merge-in-merge-recursive topic, including your patch, to master back on May 30. As such, instead of re-rolling your patch, we'd need a patch on top of the other existing change. Also, take a look at the preliminary release announcement -- you show up as a new contributor to git! See it at https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqwove4pzo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > + output(o, 2, _("Auto-merging %s"), path); ... > + output(o, 2, _("Auto-merging %s"), path); I preferred your old initial wording here, "Fast-forwarding submodule %s" (I just wanted the "to %s" part at the end removed). I'm afraid that users who saw "Auto-merging $submodule" would assume that we descended into the submodule and ran a full merge there. Could you submit a patch that just removed that "to %s" part?
