On July 21, 2022 11:06 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> * "git merge" would learn an option to recognize that the branch >> being merged has such an empty commit at the tip, and instead >> merge the parent of the tip of the branch into the integration >> branch, while using the log message of the discarded tip commit >> in the log message of the merge itself. > >An issue that needs to be worked out at the Porcelain level is that this layout will >make "git branch --[no-]merged master", which is an effective way to list what's in >and what's left out of the 'master' >integration branch, more or less useless. A topic branch with the cover letter >commit at the tip may want to be merged to 'next' and then after cooking for a >while merged down to 'master', and each time it gets merged, the merge has to >leave the cover letter commit alone. In spirit, such a merge commit merges the >topic "fully", but at the topological level, the topic is not (and will never be) >merged fully, and "git branch --merged next" will not show. > >I guess once the topic hits the oldest integration track that it meant to go, we >could "pop" the cover letter commit out of the topic, and at that point it would >appear to have been merged to 'master' as well as to 'next'. But it would be nice if >we did not have to discard the cover letter commit only to please "git branch". >IOW, it would be helpful to teach "git branch --[no-]merged" to compute the >"right thing" in such a layout. I might be missing something here, but could not a description follow similar semantics to how git describe works on tags? Anchor the description on the commit where the branch was spawned, then determine the appropriate description based on things like --first-parent. Again, I'm probably in the weeds. --Randall
