Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > As an orthogonal point, I wonder whether we can start the multi-step > migration of making --no-commit imply --no-ff by default: > > 1. Act as --ff when --no-commit is passed without --ff or --no-ff > (the state today) which means "--no-commit controls whether a new commit is created or not and nothing else, and because --ff is the default for merge, merging a true descendant will fast-forward". > 5. Refuse to perform a fast-forward merge with --no-commit is passed > without --ff or --no-ff, just as though --no-ff were passed. Is that a good endgame, though? It is correct that "--no-ff" means "do not allow the merge to be fast-forwarded and the way the option does so is by creating an otherwise unnecessary merge commit", and "--no-commit" means "do not allow creating any new commit", so technically they are mutually incompatible, but would it be useful? I'd imagine that a more useful behaviour would be for "git merge X" with any other options to honor this basic trait: the working tree and the index after the operation shows the result of merging X and HEAD, if the merge can cleanly be made, and otherwise the working tree and the index would show something close to the result of such a merge with conflicts that would help recording the result of the merge manually. For that, wouldn't it make more sense ot change the semantics of the "--no-commit" option from "no new commit gets created" to "HEAD is not moved"? "git merge --no-commit X" when X is a descendant of HEAD would then become "git read-tree -m -u HEAD X" plus perhaps storing X in .git/MERGE_HEAD file etc. to prepare for concluding "git commit" to record the result manually. In any case, as you said, >>>> -if git merge --no-commit hot-fix && >>>> +if git merge --no-commit --no-ff hot-fix && >>> >>> Good. > > This part still looks like a good change to me. :) This looks good to me too.
