Re: [PATCH] "master" should be treated no differently from any other branch
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 15, 2006, 10:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <elttlo$h4s$2@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061214215725.GA26202@spearce.org>
Shawn Pearce wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday 2006, December 14 21:30, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> > I guess that question indicates that the part of my message you >> > did not quote was not written cleanly enough. >> >> It was; I'm just stupid. >> >> Let's make the special case "linux-master" and then Linus gets what he wants >> and consistency is restored. >> >> No? Okay, I give up then. :-) > > What about we do instead: > > [branch] > mergeMessageTemplate = "Merge '%(remoteref)' from '%(remoteurl)' into '%(localref)' > %(summary)" > [branch "master"] > mergeMessageTemplate = "Merge '%(remoteref)' from '%(remoteurl)' > %(summary)"
I disagree about '%(summary)' part, as it is controlled by merge.summary configuration variable. If you want per branch configuration, why not branch.<branchname>.mergesummary?
By the way, the above ignores the fact, that besides having hardcoded that we don't say "into master", we have _two_ merge subject templates: one for merging from remote, one for merging from local. We might not have %(remoteurl), then what?
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git