From: demerphq Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:43:48 GMT Subject: Re: Poor status output during conflicted merge Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 7 July 2010 02:12, Eric Raible wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Junio C Hamano 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 +1 -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"