Hi, On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Jörg Sommer wrote: > 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: [...] That only means that the original author of rebase -p was a lazy bastard and did not use the proper way to call git-merge, namely git <msg> HEAD <the-other-branch> Now, let's try git log -S to find out who that inexcusably lazy bum was. Ciao, Dscho
