threads / patch / 15941

patchfeature request: git-mergetool --force

Subject: [PATCH] feature request: git-mergetool --force

## tl;dr

6 messages between Oct 17, 2008 and Oct 19, 2008. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 5people: 3as markdown or json

William Pursell· Oct 17, 2008, 23:23 UTC · lore

I occasionally use commands like 'cp $REMOTE $MERGED' with mergetool, and would prefer to not be prompted to start the tool on each file. A --force option would be handy.

-- 
William Pursell


diff --git a/git-mergetool.sh b/git-mergetool.sh
index 94187c3..5c9ce09 100755
--- a/git-mergetool.sh
+++ b/git-mergetool.sh
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
  # at the discretion of Junio C Hamano.
  #

-USAGE='[--tool=tool] [file to merge] ...'
+USAGE='[--tool=tool] [--force] [file to merge] ...'
  SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes
  OPTIONS_SPEC=
  . git-sh-setup
@@ -176,8 +176,10 @@ merge_file () {
      echo "Normal merge conflict for '$MERGED':"
      describe_file "$local_mode" "local" "$LOCAL"
      describe_file "$remote_mode" "remote" "$REMOTE"
-    printf "Hit return to start merge resolution tool (%s): " "$merge_tool"
-    read ans
+    if test x"$force_option" != xyes; then
+	printf "Hit return to start merge resolution tool (%s): " "$merge_tool"
+	read ans
+    fi

      case "$merge_tool" in
  	kdiff3)
@@ -283,6 +285,9 @@ merge_file () {
  while test $# != 0
  do
      case "$1" in
+	-f|--fo|--for|--forc|--force)
+	    force_option=yes
+	    ;;
  	-t|--tool*)
  	    case "$#,$1" in
  		*,*=*)

Jeff King· Oct 18, 2008, 15:48 UTC · re: William Pursell · lore

Re: [PATCH] feature request: git-mergetool --force

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:23:05AM +0100, William Pursell wrote:

> I occasionally use commands like 'cp $REMOTE $MERGED' with
> mergetool, and would prefer to not be prompted to start
> the tool on each file.  A --force option would be handy.

I think it is reasonable to want to skip this prompt, but I am not sure "--force" is the right name for such an option. Usually we reserve --force for "the tool is trying to prevent something destructive or unusual, and the user wants to override it".

Something like --no-prompt makes more sense to me, though probably something a little easier to type would be nice (or maybe alias "-n").

-Peff

William Pursell· Oct 18, 2008, 18:44 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: [PATCH] feature request: git-mergetool --force

Jeff King wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:23:05AM +0100, William Pursell wrote:
> 
>> I occasionally use commands like 'cp $REMOTE $MERGED' with
>> mergetool, and would prefer to not be prompted to start
>> the tool on each file.  A --force option would be handy.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to want to skip this prompt, but I am not sure
> "--force" is the right name for such an option. Usually we reserve
> --force for "the tool is trying to prevent something destructive or
> unusual, and the user wants to override it".
> 
> Something like --no-prompt makes more sense to me, though probably
> something a little easier to type would be nice (or maybe alias "-n").

Actually, perhaps an "interactive=no" configuration setting, which might imply trustExitCode = true.

-- 
William Pursell

Jeff King· Oct 18, 2008, 20:54 UTC · re: William Pursell · lore

Re: [PATCH] feature request: git-mergetool --force

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:44:47PM +0100, William Pursell wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> Something like --no-prompt makes more sense to me, though probably
>> something a little easier to type would be nice (or maybe alias "-n").
>
> Actually, perhaps an "interactive=no" configuration setting,
> which might imply trustExitCode = true.

That sounds reasonable to me.

-Peff

Charles Bailey· Oct 18, 2008, 23:16 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: [PATCH] feature request: git-mergetool --force

Jeff King wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:44:47PM +0100, William Pursell wrote:
> 
>>> Something like --no-prompt makes more sense to me, though probably
>>> something a little easier to type would be nice (or maybe alias "-n").
>> Actually, perhaps an "interactive=no" configuration setting,
>> which might imply trustExitCode = true.
> 
> That sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> -Peff

I've recently been using git mergetool quite a bit and I'm currently cooking a couple of patches. The first, by coincidence, was a "-n" option which disabled the hit-return-to-actually-do-anything prompt. I, also, used the variable "NOPROMPT" to describe this behaviour.

The other change that I am working was more of an issue for me. When I have a fair number of files to merge I sometimes want to skip a merge. Perhaps it's a tricky one and I want do the easy wins first.

The current behaviour of mergetool is a little annoying for this as the first 'failed' merge aborts the process and if you restart it will always pick up from where it left off. If you want to do some of the later files, you have to specify the full paths to mergetool which can be a lot more typing.

The change I am implementing just continues after a failed merge (no git add or anything, so the file stays unmerged) and allows you to merge subsequent files. I think that this will work reasonably well allowing you to do your merges in a number of passes, picking off the easy merges first and doing the tricky ones later. You can also do a quick pass through all the merges, not actually resolving everything just to see if there are any show stoppers.

The only gotcha is that this may interact less well with a --no-prompt option. With the prompt you can always abort the mergetool process with a SIGINT at the prompt, even if mergetool now wants to offer you the opportunity to merge subsequent files after aborting one particular file merge. Without the prompt mergetool is going to spawn your merge tool for every conflict even if you've changed your mind and want to abort.

Thoughts?

Charles.

Jeff King· Oct 19, 2008, 11:47 UTC · re: Charles Bailey · lore

Re: [PATCH] feature request: git-mergetool --force

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:16:37AM +0100, Charles Bailey wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> I've recently been using git mergetool quite a bit and I'm currently
> cooking a couple of patches. The first, by coincidence, was a "-n"
> option which disabled the hit-return-to-actually-do-anything prompt. I,
> also, used the variable "NOPROMPT" to describe this behaviour.
> 
> The other change that I am working was more of an issue for me. When I
> have a fair number of files to merge I sometimes want to skip a merge.
> Perhaps it's a tricky one and I want do the easy wins first.
> [...]
> Thoughts?

I think those are both reasonable behaviors. I also thought instantly of the issue you mentioned, that people who really did want to abort would get stuck in a loop of spawning the merge resolver. For that reason, I think it makes sense to have both of them as options (either config, command-line, or both). And if you do "git mergetool --no-prompt --keep-going", then you are accepting the fact that you won't have a chance to ask it to stop.

And I would suggest "-k, --keep-going" for the second option, as it reminds me of the similar "make" option.

-Peff