Re: [PATCH 1/3] merge: a random object may not necssarily be a commit

> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:57:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> The user could have said "git merge $(git rev-parse v1.0.0)"; we
>> shouldn't mark it as "Merge commit '15999998fb...'" as the merge
>> name, even though such an invocation might be crazy.
>> 
>> We could even read the "tag " header from the tag object and replace
>> the object name the user gave us, but let's not lose the information
>> by doing so, at least not yet.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> ---
>>  builtin/merge.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
>> index 0ec8f0d..990e90c 100644
>> --- a/builtin/merge.c
>> +++ b/builtin/merge.c
>> @@ -516,6 +516,19 @@ static void merge_name(const char *remote, struct strbuf *msg)
>>  		strbuf_release(&line);
>>  		goto cleanup;
>>  	}
>> +
>> +	if (remote_head->util) {
>> +		struct merge_remote_desc *desc;
>> +		desc = merge_remote_util(remote_head);
>> +		if (desc && desc->obj && desc->obj->type == OBJ_TAG) {
>> +			strbuf_addf(msg, "%s\t\t%s '%s'\n",
>> +				    sha1_to_hex(desc->obj->sha1),
>> +				    typename(desc->obj->type),
>> +				    remote);
>> +			goto cleanup;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	strbuf_addf(msg, "%s\t\tcommit '%s'\n",
>>  		sha1_to_hex(remote_head->object.sha1), remote);
>
> I guess there is no other object type besides OBJ_TAG and OBJ_COMMIT
> that would yield something we could merge, but it feels weird that you
> check only for OBJ_TAG here, and otherwise still say "commit". Would the
> intent be more clear if it just said:
>
>   if (desc && desc->obj && desc->obj->type != OBJ_COMMIT) {
>           ...
>
> ?