On 4/8/2020 5:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Then I suppose we should focus on naming merge commits with this property: >> >> A merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent (but is TREESAME >> to a later parent). >> >> The part in parentheses may be optional, because a merge commit that is >> not TREESAME to any parent will be included by every history mode. > > A merge that is TREESAME to its first parent does not introduce > anything new to the mainline (as far as the paths that match the > pathspec are concerned). We are trying to find names to call merges > that are not those no-op merges. Hmph... There are three situations for a merge commit: 1. TREESAME to _all_ parents. These are not included. 2. not TREESAME to _all_ parents. These are already included. 3. TREESAME to some, but not TREESAME to others. The third mode is the one that default mode will drop, but --full-history will include. The new mode will include some of these (the ones that are NOT TREESAME to their first parent). >> In my latest attempt at documentation, I called these merges "diverters" >> yet still used "--include-diversions". Here are a few other words that we >> could use: >> >> * diverters or diversions >> * redirects >> * switches (think railroad switch). Synonym: exchange >> * detours > > ...none of the above tells me that they are not no-op (in other > words, they do something meaningful), so I must be coming from > a direction different from you are. What redirects from what other > thing, for example? The merges do something meaningful: they "merge in" a "real" change. I'll just submit my v2 as-is, which includes a significant change to the documentation that should make things more clear. Thanks, -Stolee
