Hallo Junio, Junio C Hamano schrieb am Mon 24. Mar, 09:45 (-0700): > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> I unfortunately do not recall why _prepend_, and not _replace_, had to be > >> the right behaviour. > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/31896/match=git+merge+make+usable > > > > Hth, > > Ok, it helped. > > So it was "my suspicion that people who would want to pass -m would want > it to behave this way". > > I do not care deeply either way myself, as I never have found use for -m > to the merge command, but I think it could have been argued either way. I would like to argue for the replace way. :) Take git rebase -p as an example. If a merge is included in the rebase, it's redone with git merge -m. Because git rebase works with detached heads you get merge messages like this: commit 580c95c6bb4bb74bdbf6776ca816560690c16c5d Merge: 62b68ef... 9604163... Author: A U Thor <author@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu Apr 7 15:26:13 2005 -0700 Merge branch 'to-be-preserved' into to-be-rebased Merge commit '96041635cd9e0bd999384c1c30d7df40002a0742' into HEAD This is an example from the test t3404. Simply run git log -g and search for merges. Maybe a new option -M for merge could help? -m with the old behaviour to prepend and -M to replace. Bye, Jörg. -- IRC: Der [Prof. Andreas Pfitzmann, TU Dresden] hat gerade vorgeschlagen, sie sollen doch statt Trojanern die elektromagnetische Abstrahlung nutzen. Das sei nicht massenfähig, ginge ohne Eingriff ins System, sei zielgerichtet, und, der Hammer, das funktioniere ja bei Wahlcomputern schon sehr gut.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
