From: Eric Raible <raible@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:12:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Poor status output during conflicted merge
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBQULqlIVLOOpFoOO5Lg7hGrgm7N69qouafFyG@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v1vbm3g8j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> It might be just a simple matter of ...
>
>  wt-status.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
> index 2f9e33c..757536f 100644
> --- a/wt-status.c
> +++ b/wt-status.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,8 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
>                        fprintf(s->fp, "# No changes\n");
>                else if (s->nowarn)
>                        ; /* nothing */
> +               else if (s->in_merge)
> +                       printf("merge result will be the same as HEAD commit\n");
>                else if (s->workdir_dirty)
>                        printf("no changes added to commit%s\n",
>                                advice_status_hints

I suppose that's better than nothing, but I can't help but think that
the output would  be more useful if it explicitly mentioned the merge.

Most sensible people probably already have that in their bash prompt,
of course, but we have some users at $dayjob who use the anemic
windows cmd.exe as their "command shell".

So how about something like this:

$ git status
# Merging branch 'master' into topic
# Changes to be committed:
#
#       modified:   file2

The "branch 'master' into topic" part can come
from .git/MERGE_MSG