Hi, On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Worse, the whole concept of "pick <merge-sha1>" just does not fly well. > > [...] > > > - merge $sha1 [$sha1...] was $sha1 "Merge ..." > > > > > > will merge the given list of commits into the current HEAD, for > > > the user's reference and to keep up-to-date what was rewritten, the > > > original merge is shown after the keyword "was" (which is not a > > > valid SHA-1, luckily) > > > > I really like the underlying idea. I'm not even sure if the current > > semantics are well-defined in all cases; an explicit merge command at > > least makes it very clear what is going on. > > > > However, I think the syntax as proposed above is a bit confusing in > > the usual two-parent merge. I couldn't tell whether > > > > merge A was B > > > > was intended to be read as "the merge of A into the current branch" or > > "the merge with sha1 A" right away, and I doubt I'll be able to tell > > without looking in the (rare) cases I have to invoke rebase -i -p. > > > > I can't really come up with a better replacement for 'was', so how > > about > > > > merge A # was B "Merge..." > > > > which would make it more clear that the "was B..." has no effect > > whatsoever on the merge's semantics. > > Hmm. You're right, that is not really intuitive. How about > > merge (B) A # Merge... > > instead? Or even better: merge B parent A' # Merge... ? Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
