{"thread":{"id":"43223","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","startedAt":"2006-12-14T15:19:44Z","lastAt":"2006-12-15T21:55:10Z","messageCount":21,"participants":["Nicolas Pitre","John W. Linville","Jerome Lovy","Andy Parkins","Johannes Schindelin","Han-Wen Nienhuys","Jakub Narebski","Junio C Hamano","Robin Rosenberg","Shawn Pearce"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"294689","messageId":"200612141519.44294.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T15:19:44Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T15:19:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"This patch makes all merge log messages of the form:\n\n  Merge branch XXXX into YYYY\n\nRegardless of whether YYYY is master or not.\n\n\"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages\nbased on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes\n\"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n\nSigned-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>\n---\n builtin-fmt-merge-msg.c |    5 +----\n 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/builtin-fmt-merge-msg.c b/builtin-fmt-merge-msg.c\nindex 87d3d63..99edb75 100644\n--- a/builtin-fmt-merge-msg.c\n+++ b/builtin-fmt-merge-msg.c\n@@ -331,10 +331,7 @@ int cmd_fmt_merge_msg(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)\n \t\t\tprintf(\" of %s\", srcs.list[i]);\n \t}\n \n-\tif (!strcmp(\"master\", current_branch))\n-\t\tputchar('\\n');\n-\telse\n-\t\tprintf(\" into %s\\n\", current_branch);\n+\tprintf(\" into %s\\n\", current_branch);\n \n \tif (merge_summary) {\n \t\tstruct commit *head;\n-- \n1.4.4.1.g3ece-dirty\n"},{"id":"298081","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141627090.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612141519.44294.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2006-12-14T15:29:51Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T15:29:51Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n\n> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages \n> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes \n> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n\nI do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the \ntopics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better \nhave a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to \nbe called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that \nname more, either, right?\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"297775","messageId":"4581721B.4050102@xs4all.nl","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141627090.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Han-Wen Nienhuys","fromEmail":"hanwen@xs4all.nl","sentAt":"2006-12-14T15:47:39Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T15:47:39Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"hanwen@google.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/31547?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin escreveu:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> \n>> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages \n>> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes \n>> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n> \n> I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the \n> topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better \n> have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to \n> be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that \n> name more, either, right?\n\nDisagree: I have two principal branches, master and stable/2.10.  I don't see\nwhy the latter should get different commit messages.\n\n-- \n Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen\n"},{"id":"298009","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141655400.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"4581721B.4050102@xs4all.nl","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2006-12-14T15:57:47Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T15:57:47Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin escreveu:\n> > Hi,\n> > \n> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> > \n> >> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages \n> >> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes \n> >> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n> > \n> > I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the \n> > topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better \n> > have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to \n> > be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that \n> > name more, either, right?\n> \n> Disagree: I have two principal branches, master and stable/2.10.  I \n> don't see why the latter should get different commit messages.\n\nWell, in your case I would even more strongly argue that \"Merging into \nmaster\" bears no more information than \"Merging\", since \"master\" is too \ngeneric a name. Since \"stable/2.10\" is more specific, the same reasoning \ndoes not apply here.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"294977","messageId":"458174C9.2050401@xs4all.nl","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"4581721B.4050102@xs4all.nl","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Han-Wen Nienhuys","fromEmail":"hanwen@xs4all.nl","sentAt":"2006-12-14T15:59:05Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T15:59:05Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"hanwen@google.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/31547?v=4"},"body":"Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu:\n> Johannes Schindelin escreveu:\n>> Hi,\n>>\n>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n>>\n>>> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages \n>>> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes \n>>> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n>> I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the \n>> topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better \n>> have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to \n>> be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that \n>> name more, either, right?\n> \n> Disagree: I have two principal branches, master and stable/2.10.  I don't see\n> why the latter should get different commit messages.\n\nNote that this also confused my codeveloper (who is rather enamoured bzr), who\nwas wondering what the other branch was in case of \n\n  Merge branch 'master' of ssh+git://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond\n\n\nWouldn't it be better to mention the id of the local repository too? \n\n  Merge branch 'master' of ssh+git://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond into \n  'master' of 'hanwen@xs4all.nl'\n\nthis would give more information when these commit messages get pushed to \nsomeone else.\n\n-- \n"},{"id":"295075","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141710400.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"458174C9.2050401@xs4all.nl","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2006-12-14T16:14:39Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T16:14:39Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:\n\n> Wouldn't it be better to mention the id of the local repository too? \n> \n>   Merge branch 'master' of ssh+git://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond into \n>   'master' of 'hanwen@xs4all.nl'\n> \n> this would give more information when these commit messages get pushed \n> to someone else.\n\nAnd why not put your address and birthday in there, too?\n\nFrankly, it does not matter. In my private git repository I see that I \noften merged from this machine to that machine, criss-crossing often. It \ndoes not buy me anything to even know _where_ I got it from.\n\nBesides, the information you are most likely looking for is the committer, \nwhich is recorded anyway.\n\nThe single most useful information in the Merge message is the name of the \nbranch I merged, since it is more often than not a topic branch, which is \naptly named.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"294618","messageId":"458179B4.7020408@brefemail.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141627090.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Jerome Lovy","fromEmail":"t2a2e9z8ncbs9qg@brefemail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T16:20:04Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T16:20:04Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"t2a2e9z8ncbs9qg@brefemail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hi,\n\nJohannes Schindelin wrote:\n> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> \n>> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages \n>> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes \n>> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n> \n> I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the \n> topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better \n> have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to \n> be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that \n> name more, either, right?\n\nbecause I like the pattern framework described in the book \"Software \nConfiguration Management Patterns\", I like to use \"mainline\" instead of \n\"master\", for example.\n\nJérôme\n"},{"id":"295829","messageId":"200612141625.08485.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141627090.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T16:25:07Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T16:25:07Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Thursday 2006 December 14 15:29, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the\n> topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better\n\nWhile there might _usually_ be a principal branch; the special casing is \n_always_ hard coded.\n\n> have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to\n> be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that\n> name more, either, right?\n\nYou're correct; but we're talking about branch names not program names.  \nMaking \"master\" special rather than simply a default means git is dictating \npolicy.  It isn't git's place to decide what my branches are called, \nespecially as it is git itself that lets me choose freely to begin with.\n\nAndy\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE\n"},{"id":"295003","messageId":"200612141634.54616.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612141625.08485.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T16:34:51Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T16:34:51Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"\n> > have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to\n> > be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that\n> > name more, either, right?\n>\n> You're correct; but we're talking about branch names not program names.\n\nAnd the analogy is flawed.  I don't want git to be called guitar, however I'd \nbe very upset if I got\n  \n $ mv git guitar\n Error: git is conventionally called guitar\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE\n"},{"id":"294962","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141735500.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612141625.08485.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2006-12-14T16:39:06Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T16:39:06Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n\n> Making \"master\" special rather than simply a default means git is \n> dictating policy.  It isn't git's place to decide what my branches are \n> called, especially as it is git itself that lets me choose freely to \n> begin with.\n\nFine. I don't give a flying fly. And if -- by making this and related \nchanges -- new users find it even harder to start with Git, I will ignore \nany complaints. I mean, this is yet something new in an almost-everyday \nmessage that the user has to get used to.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"294235","messageId":"20061214174251.GA16819@tuxdriver.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612141519.44294.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"John W. Linville","fromEmail":"linville@tuxdriver.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T17:42:57Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T17:42:57Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"linville@tuxdriver.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/6d8306e6a14a7040d9197d96418fe97d4e6a76024ad7585f915c1170701aca01?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:19:44PM +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> This patch makes all merge log messages of the form:\n> \n>   Merge branch XXXX into YYYY\n> \n> Regardless of whether YYYY is master or not.\n> \n> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages\n> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes\n> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n\nWhy not drop the \"into YYYY\" part for everyone else?  I don't find\nit useful at all, and is just confusing if I merge to a temporary\nbranch and then pull that into master later.\n\nJohn\n-- \nJohn W. Linville\n"},{"id":"294070","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612141321110.18171@xanadu.home","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"4581721B.4050102@xs4all.nl","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Nicolas Pitre","fromEmail":"nico@cam.org","sentAt":"2006-12-14T18:22:26Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T18:22:26Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"nico@fluxnic.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/702790?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin escreveu:\n> > Hi,\n> > \n> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> > \n> >> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages \n> >> based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes \n> >> \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n> > \n> > I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you collect the \n> > topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for the name: better \n> > have a convention here than configurability. You would not want \"git\" to \n> > be called \"guitar\" for some users, just because they happen to like that \n> > name more, either, right?\n> \n> Disagree: I have two principal branches, master and stable/2.10.  I don't see\n> why the latter should get different commit messages.\n\nI also agree to disagree.  \"master\" is maybe the default branch, but it \nis not so special to deserve a different message than any other branch.\n\n\n"},{"id":"296524","messageId":"200612141935.49776.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"20061214174251.GA16819@tuxdriver.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Robin Rosenberg","fromEmail":"robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T18:35:49Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T18:35:49Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"robin.rosenberg@dewire.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/46357?v=4"},"body":"torsdag 14 december 2006 18:42 skrev John W. Linville:\n> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:19:44PM +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> > This patch makes all merge log messages of the form:\n> >\n> >   Merge branch XXXX into YYYY\n> >\n> > Regardless of whether YYYY is master or not.\n> >\n> > \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages\n> > based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a user likes\n> > \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n>\n> Why not drop the \"into YYYY\" part for everyone else?  I don't find\n> it useful at all, and is just confusing if I merge to a temporary\n> branch and then pull that into master later.\n\nOr just drop both the from, into and repo names.. A commit may come from a \ncertain repo, buy you would never know since it may have been pulled there \nrather than committed, so the merge message is misleading and if the merge \nwas a fast forward you wouldn't see a merge message at all.\n\nTo make everybody happy, the .git/config could contain a template that states \nthe project policy on merge commits.\n\nObviously the person executing the merge is free to amend the merge message, \ninsertering synthetic commits or whatever he/she sees fit.\n\n"},{"id":"295906","messageId":"7vejr22ose.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612141519.44294.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-14T20:41:37Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T20:41:37Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment\n\nIn principle yes.\n\nHowever, the fmt-merge-message was designed so for a very\npractical reason --- to keep Merge commit log messages Linus\nmakes in the kernel repository short and readable.\n\nWhen your workflow is heavily based on merges from topics to\nmore than one maintenance tracks (say, 'maint' and 'master') and\nthe policy is to keep older maintenance tracks to be subsets of\nnewer maintenance tracks (e.g. changes applicable to an older\nmaintenance track are first merged into 'maint' and then 'maint'\nis merged into 'master'), being able to see the patchflow is\nsometimes handy [*1*].\n\nI do not have issues against making git-status to always note\nwhich branch the commit is going to be made, though.\n\n\n[Footnote]\n\n*1* Right now we do not have --only-merges option to log family,\nso I use \"show-branch maint master | grep '^ *-'\" instead to get\nthis information.\n\n"},{"id":"295614","messageId":"200612142123.16291.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"7vejr22ose.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T21:23:15Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T21:23:15Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Thursday 2006, December 14 20:41, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> However, the fmt-merge-message was designed so for a very\n> practical reason --- to keep Merge commit log messages Linus\n> makes in the kernel repository short and readable.\n\nI'm only after consistency; how about the reverse solution: drop the \"into\" \ncompletely?\n\n\nAndy\n-- \nDr Andrew Parkins, M Eng (Hons), AMIEE\n"},{"id":"297271","messageId":"7virge17yh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612142123.16291.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-14T21:30:30Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T21:30:30Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> On Thursday 2006, December 14 20:41, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n>> However, the fmt-merge-message was designed so for a very\n>> practical reason --- to keep Merge commit log messages Linus\n>> makes in the kernel repository short and readable.\n>\n> I'm only after consistency; how about the reverse solution: drop the \"into\" \n> completely?\n\nI guess that question indicates that the part of my message you\ndid not quote was not written cleanly enough.\n"},{"id":"295587","messageId":"200612142137.54505.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"7virge17yh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-14T21:37:53Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T21:37:53Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Thursday 2006, December 14 21:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> I guess that question indicates that the part of my message you\n> did not quote was not written cleanly enough.\n\nIt was; I'm just stupid.\n\nLet's make the special case \"linux-master\" and then Linus gets what he wants \nand consistency is restored.\n\nNo?  Okay, I give up then. :-)\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andrew Parkins, M Eng (Hons), AMIEE\n"},{"id":"296813","messageId":"20061214215725.GA26202@spearce.org","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"200612142137.54505.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Shawn Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2006-12-14T21:57:25Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-14T21:57:25Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote:\n> On Thursday 2006, December 14 21:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > I guess that question indicates that the part of my message you\n> > did not quote was not written cleanly enough.\n> \n> It was; I'm just stupid.\n> \n> Let's make the special case \"linux-master\" and then Linus gets what he wants \n> and consistency is restored.\n> \n> No?  Okay, I give up then. :-)\n\nWhat about we do instead:\n\n\t[branch]\n\t\tmergeMessageTemplate = \"Merge '%(remoteref)' from '%(remoteurl)' into '%(localref)'\n%(summary)\"\n\t[branch \"master\"]\n\t\tmergeMessageTemplate = \"Merge '%(remoteref)' from '%(remoteurl)'\n%(summary)\"\n\n?  IOW let the user supply the merge template message in the\nrepository config somehow and use string placeholders like what\nshow-ref accepts?  Then the default can be to not have the \"into\" at\nall, and Linus surely could just set his branch.mergeMessageTemplate\nto a string which gives him the message that he and his fellow\nkernel hackers find to be useful?\n\n-- \n"},{"id":"296479","messageId":"eltt8n$h4s$1@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612141710400.3635@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-15T10:29:01Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-15T10:29:01Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:\n> \n>> Wouldn't it be better to mention the id of the local repository too? \n>> \n>>   Merge branch 'master' of ssh+git://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond into \n>>   'master' of 'hanwen@xs4all.nl'\n>> \n>> this would give more information when these commit messages get pushed \n>> to someone else.\n> \n> And why not put your address and birthday in there, too?\n> \n> Frankly, it does not matter. In my private git repository I see that I \n> often merged from this machine to that machine, criss-crossing often. It \n> does not buy me anything to even know _where_ I got it from.\n> \n> Besides, the information you are most likely looking for is the committer, \n> which is recorded anyway.\n> \n> The single most useful information in the Merge message is the name of the \n> branch I merged, since it is more often than not a topic branch, which is \n> aptly named.\n\nBy the way, I run git with merge.summary=true, and it is very nice and\nusually shows the correct thing... but because git doesn't mark branching\npoints in any way sometimes under feature branch header there are changes\nnot related to given topic, but which were on given branch; the\nfast-forward case I think.\n\nThat said, I'm all for not having \"master\" branch special-cased, besides\nhaving it default name for branch in git-init-db.\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n\n"},{"id":"295206","messageId":"elttlo$h4s$2@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"20061214215725.GA26202@spearce.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-15T10:35:58Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-15T10:35:58Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Shawn Pearce wrote:\n\n> Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote:\n>> On Thursday 2006, December 14 21:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> \n>> > I guess that question indicates that the part of my message you\n>> > did not quote was not written cleanly enough.\n>> \n>> It was; I'm just stupid.\n>> \n>> Let's make the special case \"linux-master\" and then Linus gets what he wants \n>> and consistency is restored.\n>> \n>> No?  Okay, I give up then. :-)\n> \n> What about we do instead:\n> \n>       [branch]\n>               mergeMessageTemplate = \"Merge '%(remoteref)' from '%(remoteurl)' into '%(localref)'\n> %(summary)\"\n>       [branch \"master\"]\n>               mergeMessageTemplate = \"Merge '%(remoteref)' from '%(remoteurl)'\n> %(summary)\"\n\nI disagree about '%(summary)' part, as it is controlled by merge.summary\nconfiguration variable. If you want per branch configuration, why not\nbranch.<branchname>.mergesummary?\n\nBy the way, the above ignores the fact, that besides having hardcoded\nthat we don't say \"into master\", we have _two_ merge subject templates:\none for merging from remote, one for merging from local. We might not\nhave %(remoteurl), then what?\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n\n"},{"id":"296132","messageId":"7vbqm4omdd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43223","inReplyTo":"458179B4.7020408@brefemail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] \"master\" should be treated no differently from any other branch","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-15T21:55:10Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-15T21:55:10Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jerome Lovy <t2a2e9z8ncbs9qg@brefemail.com> writes:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Andy Parkins wrote:\n>>\n>>> \"master\" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log\n>>> messages based on the name of the branch is bad form.  What if a\n>>> user likes \"my/master\" or \"my/head\" as their master branch?\n>>\n>> I do not agree. There is usually a principal branch, where you\n>> collect the topics, and you do want to treat that special. As for\n>> the name: better have a convention here than configurability. You\n>> would not want \"git\" to be called \"guitar\" for some users, just\n>> because they happen to like that name more, either, right?\n>\n> because I like the pattern framework described in the book \"Software\n> Configuration Management Patterns\", I like to use \"mainline\" instead\n> of \"master\", for example.\n\nTough.  Like it or not, 'master' has been the name of the\ndefault branch since very early days of git (May 30, 2005).\n\nI think you guys are barking up the wrong tree.  I do not agree\nit is wrong to treat the principal branch (or branches, such as\nmy 'master' and 'maint', or Jeff's 'ALL' and 'upstream') in a\ndifferent way from other branches.\n\nQuite the opposite.  It is a wonderful thing for something like\nfmt-merge-message.\n\nThe recommended workflow when you have topic branches is to cook\nnew things in the topics and merge them into principal branches,\nand never merge the other way or across topics unless you\nabsolutely need to (i.e. the topic's evolution depends on\nsomething new in your principal branches or another topic).  So\nmerging into your principal branch is a normal event and giving\nshort message makes tons of sense, while merging into a topic is\nan abnormal situation that warrants \"into this-topic\" along with\nan explanation why that unusual cross merge was needed.\n\nWhat we could improve is to allow people to use different names\nother than 'master' for their principal branches, to help use of\nwords like 'mainline' and 'upstream'.  We can have a new\nconfiguration under \"branch.*\" namespace to mark branches that\ntells fmt-merge-msg to drop \"into branch\" part from its output.\n\nWhen you have more than one principal branches, it may be useful\nbe able to tell which principal branch was merged into with a\nparticular merge, and in such a situation, you may want your\nconfig to tell fmt-merge-msg not to drop \"into branch\" for any\nbranch.\n\nOn this \"master is not special\" topic, I would accept the\n'status' patch that always makes it to say \"on this branch\" for\nall branches, but this is not because 'master' is not special.\n\nCommitting on principal branches and committing on topic\nbranches both happen as a normal event, and I think it is not\nunusual to have more than one principal branches in an advanced\nusage scenario.  It is very prudent thing to remind the user\nwhat branch he is on, so that he can tell he is about to make a\ncommit on a wrong branch.\n\n"}]}