Thanks for your reviews.
> In the original "trivial merge" mode, the command takes three trees
> without having to have this new option. In the new "write-tree"
> mode, currently it is incapable of taking the base, but it does not
> have to stay that way. Wouldn't it be sufficient to update the UI
> to
>
> git merge-tree [--write-tree] [<options>] [<base-commit>] <branch1> <branch2>
> git merge-tree [--trivial-merge] <base-commit> <branch1> <branch2>
>
> IOW, when you want to supply the base, you'd be explicit and ask for
> the new "write-tree" mode, i.e.
>
> $ git merge-tree --write-tree $(git merge-base branch^ branch) HEAD branch
>
> would be how you would use merge-tree to cherry-pick the commit at
> the tip of the branch on top of the current commit.
Referring to Newren's reply, if we need to implement octopus merges for git-merge-tree in the future, still need a new option,
so I haven't modified it yet.
>> @@ -402,6 +403,7 @@ struct merge_tree_options {
>> int allow_unrelated_histories;
>> int show_messages;
>> int name_only;
>> + char* merge_base;
>
> Style. We write in C, not in C++, and our asterisks stick to variables and members of structs, not types.
Done.
