From: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:20:26 GMT
Subject: Re: equal-tree-merges as way to make rebases fast-forward-able
Message-ID: <20091202192026.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vmy23bl4o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> I think we really should start deprecating the ancient form, but the
> original sample script using this syntax from Linus was copied by many
> people and are still found everywhere, I think, and people may still
> use their scripts that were written with the ancient syntax.
>
> In any case, at least this patch will make it start behaving a bit
> more sanely.

Thank you; it fixes the bug for me. Do I have to say 

    Tested-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>

to ask you to include it in the new release?

> -- >8 --
> Subject: Do not misidentify "git merge foo HEAD" as an old-style invocation
>
> This was misinterpreted as an ancient style "git merge <message> HEAD
> <commit> <commit>..." that merges one (or more) <commit> into the current
> branch and record the resulting commit with the given message.  Then a
> later sanity check found that there is no <commit> specified and gave
> a usage message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/builtin-merge.c b/builtin-merge.c
> index e95c5dc..e5cf795 100644
> --- a/builtin-merge.c
> +++ b/builtin-merge.c
> @@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ static int suggest_conflicts(void)
>  static struct commit *is_old_style_invocation(int argc, const char **argv)
>  {
>  	struct commit *second_token = NULL;
> -	if (argc > 1) {
> +	if (argc > 2) {
>  		unsigned char second_sha1[20];
>  
>  		if (get_sha1(argv[1], second_sha1))

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/