From: kylezhao (赵柯宇) <kylezhao@tencent.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:43:45 GMT
Subject: RE: [Internet]Re: [PATCH] merge-tree.c: add --merge-base=<commit> option
Message-ID: <ad27a59046e345a68669d3876a75772a@tencent.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqczadm93w.fsf@gitster.g>

Thanks for your reviews.

> In the original "trivial merge" mode, the command takes three trees
> without having to have this new option.  In the new "write-tree"
> mode, currently it is incapable of taking the base, but it does not
> have to stay that way.  Wouldn't it be sufficient to update the UI
> to
>
>     git merge-tree [--write-tree] [<options>] [<base-commit>] <branch1> <branch2>
>     git merge-tree [--trivial-merge] <base-commit> <branch1> <branch2>
>
> IOW, when you want to supply the base, you'd be explicit and ask for
> the new "write-tree" mode, i.e.
>
>     $ git merge-tree --write-tree $(git merge-base branch^ branch) HEAD branch 
>
> would be how you would use merge-tree to cherry-pick the commit at
> the tip of the branch on top of the current commit.

Referring to Newren's reply, if we need to implement octopus merges for git-merge-tree in the future,  still need a new option, 
so I haven't modified it yet.

>> @@ -402,6 +403,7 @@ struct merge_tree_options {
>>  	int allow_unrelated_histories;
>>  	int show_messages;
>>  	int name_only;
>> +	char* merge_base;
>
> Style.  We write in C, not in C++, and our asterisks stick to variables and members of structs, not types.

Done.