Re: [PATCH] git-pull.sh: Fix call to git-merge for new command format

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Dec 2, 2009, 10:02 UTC
Message-ID: <4B163B49.4070606@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vmy22qmgp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.12.2009 00:54:

Show 25 quoted lines

> "Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> writes:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
>> ---
>>  git-pull.sh |    4 ++--
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
>> index bfeb4a0..a875809 100755
>> --- a/git-pull.sh
>> +++ b/git-pull.sh
>> @@ -218,5 +218,5 @@ merge_name=$(git fmt-merge-msg $log_arg <"$GIT_DIR/FETCH_HEAD") || exit
>>  test true = "$rebase" &&
>>  	exec git-rebase $diffstat $strategy_args --onto $merge_head \
>>  	${oldremoteref:-$merge_head}
>> -exec git-merge $diffstat $no_commit $squash $no_ff $ff_only $log_arg $strategy_args \
>> -	"$merge_name" HEAD $merge_head $verbosity
>> +exec git-merge  $verbosity -m $diffstat $no_commit $squash $no_ff $ff_only $log_arg $strategy_args \
>> +	"$merge_name" $merge_head
>> -- 
>> 1.6.6.rc0.114.gc8648
> 
> Heh, embarrasing.
> 
> But I think you wanted to have -m immediately before "$merge_name", no?

This made me wonder a bit: Do we have a policy regarding the use of "git-command" vs. "git command" in git shell scripts such as this one? Of course, having been called through git, the dashed versions are in the PATH. But I see a mix here ("git fmt-merge-msg" vs. "git-merge") and in other scripts, which may potentially (in broken setups) lead to parts of git from different installs being called. I would think the dashed form is even more efficient (fewer lookups)?

Michael