Re: [PATCH] merge: indicate remote tracking branches in merge message
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Aug 9, 2009, 07:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090809074035.GA4778@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vab29a1fr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 12:31:04AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I somewhat suspect that the patch was not applied because it also lacked > necessary adjustments to tests. With this patch, I think the tests would > fail.
Yeah, see my follow-up patch.
Show 5 quoted lines
> Nevertheless, I think it is a good thing to do. But I am unsure about the > implementation. > > Shouldn't it instead feed what it got from the end user to the dwim > machinery, and make sure it dwims into refs/remotes/ hierarchy?
I'm not sure that is all that different in practice than what is happening now. Mainly I did it the way I did so that I didn't touch the code path for detecting local branches.
But assuming they are functionally identical, I think your patch is much more readable.
> In other words, like this. Note that it would be much clearer to see > what's needed, if you want to extend it to refs/tags hierarchy ;-)
I'm not sure adding "tag foo" will actually work, as it still has to make it through the bit where we parse FETCH_HEAD. I'm not sure if it would get mutilated to "commit foo" by that code or not.
-Peff