On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:10:14 -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 08:17:25PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote: > > > > I think this is a failing of git-merge, though, for not including that > > > nice human-readable information. We can fix it with something like this: > > > > Maybe you could call git-name-rev on it if it does not come with > > a human-readable name. > > I considered that, but it has two drawbacks: > > 1. It does not handle pulls which have no tracking branch (the only > ref we have is FETCH_HEAD, which is not a useful name :) ). If there's no useful name, than it's probably hard to do anything at all about it. Though FETCH_HEAD is not all that useless -- it at least says it is that that you pull. > 2. In some circumstances, it can come up with counter-intuitive > names. If more than one ref points to a given commit, then you can > end up with something like "git-merge foo" telling you all about > the merge conflicts with "bar". But perhaps that is too obscure a > corner case to worry about. I meant it as a fallback, for cases where it for some reason can't be recorded or is not recorded. Recording it is obviously better. -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
