Re: [PATCH] merge: use editor by default in interactive sessions
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Jan 30, 2012, 17:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87hazdazmb.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vipk26p1b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:18:40 -0800, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Traditionally, a cleanly resolved merge was committed by "git merge" using > the auto-generated merge commit log message with invoking the editor. > > After 5 years of use in the field, it turns out that people perform too > many unjustified merges of the upstream history into their topic branches. > These merges are not just useless, but they are often not explained well, > and making the end result unreadable when it gets time for merging their > history back to their upstream.
Ok, so I'm late to the party and perhaps I missed the discussion about this, but...
I think the proposed commit message should have a comment, just like for an ordinary commit, that explains why we are showing the user an editor. (I'm too lazy to check, but I suspect we *always* give a comment about what is going on when we fire up an editor.)
I would suggest something like
# Please enter the commit message for your merge commit. Lines starting # with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts the commit.
or if you feel comfortable with educating the user in a workflow-specific way, even
# Please enter the commit message for your merge commit. You should # justify it especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic # branch. # # Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts # the commit.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch