From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:35:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "master" should be treated no differently from any other branch
Message-ID: <elttlo$h4s$2@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061214215725.GA26202@spearce.org>

Shawn Pearce wrote:

> 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