Re: [PATCH] "master" should be treated no differently from any other branch
- From
Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
- Date
- Dec 14, 2006, 18:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200612141935.49776.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061214174251.GA16819@tuxdriver.com>
torsdag 14 december 2006 18:42 skrev John W. Linville:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:19:44PM +0000, Andy Parkins wrote: > > This patch makes all merge log messages of the form: > > > > Merge branch XXXX into YYYY > > > > Regardless of whether YYYY is master or not. > > > > "master" shouldn't get special treatment; making different log messages > > based on the name of the branch is bad form. What if a user likes > > "my/master" or "my/head" as their master branch? > > Why not drop the "into YYYY" part for everyone else? I don't find > it useful at all, and is just confusing if I merge to a temporary > branch and then pull that into master later.
Or just drop both the from, into and repo names.. A commit may come from a certain repo, buy you would never know since it may have been pulled there rather than committed, so the merge message is misleading and if the merge was a fast forward you wouldn't see a merge message at all.
To make everybody happy, the .git/config could contain a template that states the project policy on merge commits.
Obviously the person executing the merge is free to amend the merge message, insertering synthetic commits or whatever he/she sees fit.