On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:32 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > +With --no-commit perform the merge and stop just before creating > > +a merge commit, to give the user a chance to inspect and further > > +tweak the merge result before committing. > > ++ > > +Note that fast-forward updates do not need to create a merge > > +commit and therefore there is no way to stop those merges with > > +--no-commit. Thus, if you want to ensure your branch is not > > +changed or updated by the merge command, use --no-ff with > > +--no-commit. > > While the above is an improvement (so I'll queue it on 'pu' not to > lose sight of it), I find the use of "do not need to" above somewhat > misleading. It solicits a reaction "ok, we know it does not need > to, but it could prepare to create one to allow us to further muck > with it, no?". > > IOW, a fast-forward by definition does not create a merge by itself, > so there is nowhere to stop during a creation of a merge. So at > least: > > s/do not need to/do not/ Yes, I agree that's a good change. I'll wait a few days for other feedback and resend with that and any other changes. > It also may be a good idea to consider detecting this case and be a > bit more helpful, perhaps with end-user experience looking like... > > $ git checkout master^0 > $ git merge --no-commit next > Updating 0d0ac3826a..ee538a81fe > Fast-forward > ...diffstat follows here... > hint: merge completed without creating a commit. > hint: if you wanted to prepare for a manually tweaked merge, > hint: do "git reset --keep ORIG_HEAD" followed by > hint: "git merge --no-ff --no-commit next". > > or even > > $ git checkout master^0 > $ git merge --no-commit next > warning: defaulting to --no-ff, given a --no-commit request > Automatic merge went well; stopped before committing as requested > hint: if you'd rather have a fast-forward without creating a commit, > hint: do "git reset --keep next" now. Good points. I thought of this last one before sending, though without pre- and post- warnings/hints; without such text it definitely seemed too magical and possibly leading to unexpected surprises in a different direction, so I dismissed it without further thought. But the warnings/hints help. > I do not have a strong preference among three (the third option > being not doing anything), but if pressed, I'd say that the last one > might be the most user-friendly, even though it feels a bit too > magical and trying to be smarter than its own good. I also lack a strong preference. Maybe mark it #leftoverbits for someone that does? > In any case, the hint for the "recovery" procedure needs to be > carefully written. Yes.
