In documentation pertaining to autostash behavior, we refer to the
"stash reflog". This description is too low-level as the reflog refers
to an implementation detail of how the stash works and, for end-users,
they do not need to be aware of this at all.
Change references of "stash reflog" to "stash list", which should
provide more accessible terminology for end-users.
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In rebase, one can pass the `--autostash` option to cause the worktree
to be automatically stashed before continuing with the rebase. This
option is missing in merge, however.
Implement the `--autostash` option and corresponding `merge.autoStash`
option in merge which stashes before merging and then pops after.
This option is useful when a developer has some local changes on a topic
branch but they realize that their work depends on another branch.
Previously, they had to run something like
git fetch ...
git stash push
git merge FETCH_HEAD
git stash pop
but now, that is reduced to
git fetch ...
git merge --autostash FETCH_HEAD
When an autostash is generated, it is automatically reapplied to the
worktree only in three explicit situations:
1. An incomplete merge is commit using `git commit`.
2. A merge completes successfully.
3. A merge is aborted using `git merge --abort`.
In all other situations where the merge state is removed using
remove_merge_branch_state() such as aborting a merge via
`git reset --hard`, the autostash is saved into the stash reflog
instead keeping the worktree clean.
Helped-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Suggested-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
f8b863598c ("builtin/merge: honor commit-msg hook for merges", 2017-09-07)
introduced the no-verify flag to merge for bypassing the commit-msg
hook, though in a different way from the implementation in commit.c.
Change the implementation in merge.c to be the same as in commit.c so
that both do the same in the same way. This also changes the output of
"git merge --help" to be more clear that the hook return code is
respected by default.
[js: * reworded commit message
* squashed documentation changes from original series' patch 3/4
]
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Command mode options that the user can choose one among many are
listed like this in the documentation:
git am (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)
They are listed on a single line and in parenthesis, because they
are not optional.
But documentation pages for some commands deviate from this norm.
Fix the merge and rebase docs to match this style.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This allows to cancel the current merge without resetting worktree/index,
which is what --abort is for. Like other --quit(s), this is often used
when you forgot that you're in the middle of a merge and already
switched away, doing different things. By the time you've realized, you
can't even continue the merge anymore.
This also makes all in-progress commands, am, merge, rebase, revert and
cherry-pick, take all three --abort, --continue and --quit (bisect has a
different UI).
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
I added this option in git-checkout and git-merge in c1d7036b6b
(checkout,merge: disallow overwriting ignored files with
--no-overwrite-ignore - 2011-11-27) but did not remember to update
documentation. This completes that commit.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Spell out --no-rerere-autoupdate explictly to make searching
easier. This matches the other --no options in the man page.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is consistent with `git commit` which, like `git merge`, supports
passing the commit message via `-m <msg>` and, unlike `git merge` before
this patch, via `-F <file>`.
It is useful to allow this for scripted use, or for the upcoming patch
to allow (re-)creating octopus merges in `git rebase --rebase-merges`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
builtin/merge.c contains this important requirement for merge strategies:
...the index must be in sync with the head commit. The strategies are
responsible to ensure this.
However, Documentation/git-merge.txt says:
...[merge will] abort if there are any changes registered in the index
relative to the `HEAD` commit. (One exception is when the changed
index entries are in the state that would result from the merge
already.)
Interestingly, prior to commit c0be8aa06b ("Documentation/git-merge.txt:
Partial rewrite of How Merge Works", 2008-07-19),
Documentation/git-merge.txt said much more:
...the index file must match the tree of `HEAD` commit...
[NOTE]
This is a bit of a lie. In certain special cases [explained
in detail]...
Otherwise, merge will refuse to do any harm to your repository
(that is...your working tree...and index are left intact).
So, this suggests that the exceptions existed because there were special
cases where it would case no harm, and potentially be slightly more
convenient for the user. While the current text in git-merge.txt does
list a condition under which it would be safe to proceed despite the index
not matching HEAD, it does not match what is actually implemented, in
three different ways:
* The exception is written to describe what unpack-trees allows. Not
all merge strategies allow such an exception, though, making this
description misleading. 'ours' and 'octopus' merges have strictly
enforced index==HEAD for a while, and the commit previous to this
one made 'recursive' do so as well.
* If someone did a three-way content merge on a specific file using
versions from the relevant commits and staged it prior to running
merge, then that path would technically satisfy the exception listed
in git-merge.txt. unpack-trees.c would still error out on the path,
though, because it defers the three-way content merge logic to other
parts of the code (resolve, octopus, or recursive) and has no way of
checking whether the index entry from before the merge will match
the end result of the merge.
* The exception as implemented in unpack-trees actually only checked
that the index matched the MERGE_HEAD version of the file and that
HEAD matched the merge base. Assuming no renames, that would indeed
provide cases where the index matches the end result we'd get from a
merge. But renames means unpack-trees is checking that it instead
matches something other than what the final result will be, risking
either erroring out when we shouldn't need to, or not erroring out
when we should and overwriting the user's staged changes.
In addition to the wording behind this exception being misleading, it is
also somewhat surprising to see how many times the code for the special
cases were wrong or the check to make sure the index matched head was
forgotten altogether:
* Prior to commit ee6566e8d7 ("[PATCH] Rewrite read-tree", 2005-09-05),
there were many cases where an unclean index entry was allowed (look for
merged_entry_allow_dirty()); it appears that in those cases, the merge
would have simply overwritten staged changes with the result of the
merge. Thus, the merge result would have been correct, but the user's
uncommitted changes could be thrown away without warning.
* Prior to commit 160252f816 ("git-merge-ours: make sure our index
matches HEAD", 2005-11-03), the 'ours' merge strategy did not check
whether the index matched HEAD. If it didn't, the resulting merge
would include all the staged changes, and thus wasn't really an 'ours'
strategy.
* Prior to commit 3ec62ad9ff ("merge-octopus: abort if index does not
match HEAD", 2016-04-09), 'octopus' merges did not check whether the
index matched HEAD, also resulting in any staged changes from before
the commit silently being folded into the resulting merge. commit
a6ee883b8e ("t6044: new merge testcases for when index doesn't match
HEAD", 2016-04-09) was also added at the same time to try to test to
make sure all strategies did the necessary checking for the requirement
that the index match HEAD. Sadly, it didn't catch all the cases, as
evidenced by the remainder of this list...
* Prior to commit 65170c07d4 ("merge-recursive: avoid incorporating
uncommitted changes in a merge", 2017-12-21), merge-recursive simply
relied on unpack_trees() to do the necessary check, but in one special
case it avoided calling unpack_trees() entirely and accidentally ended
up silently including any staged changes from before the merge in the
resulting merge commit.
* The commit immediately before this one in this series noted that the
exceptions were written in a way that assumed no renames, making it
unsafe for merge-recursive to use. merge-recursive was modified to
use its own check to enforce that index==HEAD.
This history makes it very tempting to go into builtin/merge.c and replace
the comment that strategies must enforce that index matches HEAD with code
that just enforces it. At this point, that would only affect the
'resolve' strategy; all other strategies have each been modified to
manually enforce it. (However, note that index==HEAD is not strictly
enforced for fast-forward merges, as those are not considered a merge
strategy and they trigger in builtin/merge.c before the section in the
code where the relevant comment is found.)
But, even if we don't take the step of just fixing these problems by
enforcing index==HEAD for all strategies, we at least need to update this
misleading documentation in git-merge.txt. For now, just modify the claim
in Documentation/git-merge.txt to fix the error. The precise details
around combination of merges strategies and special cases probably is not
relevant to most users, so simply state that exceptions may exist but are
narrow and vary depending upon which merge strategy is in use.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The syntax "git merge <message> HEAD <commit>" has been removed. The
order of the syntax should also be updated.
Signed-off-by: Meng-Sung Wu <mengsungwu@fortunewhite.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
merge can take --signoff, but without pull passing --signoff down, it
is inconvenient to use; allow 'pull' to take the option and pass it
through.
The order of options in merge-options.txt is mostly alphabetical by
long option since 7c85d274 (Documentation/merge-options.txt: order
options in alphabetical groups, 2009-10-22). The long-option bit
didn't make it into the commit message, but it's under the fold in
[1]. I've put --signoff between --log and --stat to preserve the
alphabetical order.
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/87iqe7zspn.fsf@jondo.cante.net/
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Pull has supported these since ea230d8 (pull: add the --gpg-sign
option, 2014-02-10). Insert in long-option alphabetical order
following 7c85d274 (Documentation/merge-options.txt: order options
in alphabetical groups, 2009-10-22).
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Follow the Oxford style, which says to use "up-to-date" before the noun,
but "up to date" after it. Don't change plumbing (specifically
send-pack.c, but transport.c (git push) also has the same string).
This was produced by grepping for "up-to-date" and "up to date". It
turned out we only had to edit in one direction, removing the hyphens.
Fix a typo in Documentation/git-diff-index.txt while we're there.
Reported-by: Jeffrey Manian <jeffrey.manian@gmail.com>
Reported-by: STEVEN WHITE <stevencharleswhitevoices@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Currently, 'git merge --continue' is mentioned but not explained.
Explain it.
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some projects require every commit, even merges, to be signed off
[*1*]. Because "git merge" does not have a "--signoff" option like
"git commit" does, the user needs to add one manually when the
command presents an editor to describe the merge, or later use "git
commit --amend --signoff".
Help developers of these projects by teaching "--signoff" option to
"git merge".
*1* https://public-inbox.org/git/CAHv71zK5SqbwrBFX=a8-DY9H3KT4FEyMgv__p2gZzNr0WUAPUw@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
Requested-by: Dan Kohn <dan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Gryglicki <lukaszgryglicki@o2.pl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Teach 'git merge' the --continue option which allows 'continuing' a
merge by completing it. The traditional way of completing a merge after
resolving conflicts is to use 'git commit'. Now with commands like 'git
rebase' and 'git cherry-pick' having a '--continue' option adding such
an option to 'git merge' presents a consistent UI.
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <judge.packham@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The previous commit said:
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do
so and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others,
because such a "two project merge" would be done after fetching
the other project into some location in the working tree of an
existing project and making sure how well they fit together, it
is sufficient to allow a local merge without such an option
pass-through from "git pull" to "git merge".
Prepare a patch to make it a reality, just in case it is needed.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While it makes sense to allow merging unrelated histories of two
projects that started independently into one, in the way "gitk" was
merged to "git" itself aka "the coolest merge ever", such a merge is
still an unusual event. Worse, if somebody creates an independent
history by starting from a tarball of an established project and
sends a pull request to the original project, "git merge" however
happily creates such a merge without any sign of something unusual
is happening.
Teach "git merge" to refuse to create such a merge by default,
unless the user passes a new "--allow-unrelated-histories" option to
tell it that the user is aware that two unrelated projects are
merged.
Because such a "two project merge" is a rare event, a configuration
option to always allow such a merge is not added.
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do so
and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others, because such
a "two project merge" would be done after fetching the other project
into some location in the working tree of an existing project and
making sure how well they fit together, it is sufficient to allow a
local merge without such an option pass-through from "git pull" to
"git merge". Many tests that are updated by this patch does the
pass-through manually by turning:
git pull something
into its equivalent:
git fetch something &&
git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD
If somebody is inclined to add such an option, updated tests in this
change need to be adjusted back to:
git pull --allow-unrelated-histories something
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Improve the documentation of commands taking optional arguments in two
ways:
* Documents the behavior of '-O' (for grep) and '-S' (for commands
creating commits) when used without the optional argument.
* Document the syntax of these options.
For the second point, the behavior is documented in gitcli(7), but it is
easy for users to miss, and hard for the same user to understand why e.g.
"git status -u no" does not work.
Document this explicitly in the documentation of each short option having
an optional argument: they are the most error prone since there is no '='
sign between the option and its argument.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The branch description will be included in 'git format-patch
--cover-letter' and in 'git pull-request' emails. It can also
be used in the automatic merge message. Tell the reader.
While here, clarify that the description may be a multi-line
explanation of the purpose of the branch's patch series.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
And then if we and our users survived the previous "start warning if
the old syntax is used" patch for a few years, we could apply this
to actually drop the support for the ancient syntax.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The collect_parents() function now is responsible for
1. parsing the commits given on the command line into a list of
commits to be merged;
2. filtering these parents into independent ones; and
3. optionally calling fmt_merge_msg() via prepare_merge_message()
to prepare an auto-generated merge log message, using fake
contents that FETCH_HEAD would have had if these commits were
fetched from the current repository with "git pull . $args..."
Make "git merge FETCH_HEAD" to be the same as the traditional
git merge "$(git fmt-merge-msg <.git/FETCH_HEAD)" $commits
invocation of the command in "git pull", where $commits are the ones
that appear in FETCH_HEAD that are not marked as not-for-merge, by
making it do a bit more, specifically:
- noticing "FETCH_HEAD" is the only "commit" on the command line
and picking the commits that are not marked as not-for-merge as
the list of commits to be merged (substitute for step #1 above);
- letting the resulting list fed to step #2 above;
- doing the step #3 above, using the contents of the FETCH_HEAD
instead of fake contents crafted from the list of commits parsed
in the step #1 above.
Note that this changes the semantics. "git merge FETCH_HEAD" has
always behaved as if the first commit in the FETCH_HEAD file were
directly specified on the command line, creating a two-way merge
whose auto-generated merge log said "merge commit xyz". With this
change, if the previous fetch was to grab multiple branches (e.g.
"git fetch $there topic-a topic-b"), the new world order is to
create an octopus, behaving as if "git pull $there topic-a topic-b"
were run. This is a deliberate change to make that happen, and
can be seen in the changes to t3033 tests.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This should improve readability. Compare "thislongname" and
"thisLongName". The following keys are left in unchanged. We can
decide what to do with them later.
- am.keepcr
- core.autocrlf .safecrlf .trustctime
- diff.dirstat .noprefix
- gitcvs.usecrlfattr
- gui.blamehistoryctx .trustmtime
- pull.twohead
- receive.autogc
- sendemail.signedoffbycc .smtpsslcertpath .suppresscc
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There's no point in this:
% git merge
fatal: No commit specified and merge.defaultToUpstream not set.
We know the most likely scenario is that the user wants to merge the
upstream, and if not, he can set merge.defaultToUpstream to false.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"When you need to use space, use dash" is a strange way to say that
you must not use a space. Because it is more common for the command
line descriptions to use dashed-multi-words, you do not even want to
use spaces in these places. Rephrase the documentation to avoid
this strangeness.
Fix a few existing multi-word argument help strings, i.e.
- GPG key-ids given to -S/--gpg-sign are "key-id";
- Refs used for storing notes are "notes-ref"; and
- Expiry timestamps given to --expire are "expiry-date".
and update the corresponding documentation pages.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The option to gpg sign a merge commit is available but was not
documented. Use wording from the git-commit(1) manpage.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mars-attacks.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
You need at least four dashes in a line to have it recognized as listing
block delimiter by asciidoc.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 35d2fffd introduced 'git merge --abort' as a synonym to 'git reset
--merge', and added some failing tests in t7611-merge-abort.sh (search
'###' in this file) showing that 'git merge --abort' could not always
recover the pre-merge state.
Still, in many cases, 'git merge --abort' just works, and it is usually
considered that the ability to start a merge with uncommited changes is
an important property of Git.
Weaken the warning by discouraging only merge with /non-trivial/
uncommited changes.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
White-spaces, missing braces, standardize --[no-]foo.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When asking Git to merge a tag (such as a signed tag or annotated tag),
it will always create a merge commit even if fast-forward was possible.
It's like having --no-ff present on the command line.
It's a difference from the default behavior described in git-merge.txt.
It should be documented as an exception of "FAST-FORWARD MERGE" section
and "--ff" option description.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This change was already done by 0e615b252f (Matthieu Moy, Tue Nov 2
2010, Replace "remote tracking" with "remote-tracking"), but new
instances of remote tracking (without dash) were introduced in the
meantime.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Traditionally, a cleanly resolved merge was committed by "git merge" using
the auto-generated merge commit log message without invoking the editor.
After 5 years of use in the field, it turns out that people perform too
many unjustified merges of the upstream history into their topic branches.
These merges are not just useless, but they are often not explained well,
and making the end result unreadable when it gets time for merging their
history back to their upstream.
Earlier we added the "--edit" option to the command, so that people can
edit the log message to explain and justify their merge commits. Let's
take it one step further and spawn the editor by default when we are in an
interactive session (i.e. the standard input and the standard output are
pointing at the same tty device).
There may be existing scripts that leave the standard input and the
standard output of the "git merge" connected to whatever environment the
scripts were started, and such invocation might trigger the above
"interactive session" heuristics. GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT environment variable
can be set to "no" at the beginning of such scripts to use the historical
behaviour while the script runs.
Note that this backward compatibility is meant only for scripts, and we
deliberately do *not* support "merge.edit = yes/no/auto" configuration
option to allow people to keep the historical behaviour.
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git merge" without specifying any commit is a no-op by default.
A new option merge.defaultupstream can be set to true to cause such an
invocation of the command to merge the upstream branches configured for
the current branch by using their last observed values stored in their
remote tracking branches.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
Teach 'git merge' the --abort option, which verifies the existence of
MERGE_HEAD and then invokes 'git reset --merge' to abort the current
in-progress merge and attempt to reconstruct the pre-merge state.
The reason for adding this option is to provide a user interface for
aborting an in-progress merge that is consistent with the interface
for aborting a rebase ('git rebase --abort'), aborting the application
of a patch series ('git am --abort'), and aborting an in-progress notes
merge ('git notes merge --abort').
The patch includes documentation and testcases that explain and verify
the various scenarios in which 'git merge --abort' can run. The
testcases also document the cases in which 'git merge --abort' is
unable to correctly restore the pre-merge state (look for the '###'
comments towards the bottom of t/t7609-merge-abort.sh).
This patch has been improved by the following contributions:
- Jonathan Nieder: Move test documentation into test_description
Thanks-to: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Inside an element of an enumerated list, the second and subsequent
paragraphs need to lose their indent and have to be strung together with a
line with a single '+' on it instead. Otherwise the lines below are shown
in typewriter face, which just looks wrong.
Signed-off-by: Nathan W. Panike <nathan.panike@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the user specifies a message, use fmt_merge_msg_shortlog() to
append the shortlog.
Previously, when a message was specified, we ignored the merge title
("Merge <foo> into <bar>") and shortlog from fmt_merge_msg().
Update the documentation for -m to reflect this too.
Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Also move -X's description next to -s's in merge-options.txt.
This makes it easier to learn how to specify merge strategy options.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
commit 57bddb11 (Documentation/git-merge: reword references to
"remote" and "pull", 2010-01-07) fixed the manual to drop the
assumption that the other branch being merged is from a remote
repository. Unfortunately, in a few places, to do so it
introduced the antecedentless phrase "their versions". Worse, in
passages like the following, 'they' is playing two roles.
| highlighting changes from both the HEAD and their versions.
|
| * Look at the diffs on their own. 'git log --merge -p <path>'
Using HEAD and MERGE_HEAD nicely assigns terminology to "our" and
"their" sides. It also provides the reader with practice using
names that git will recognize on the command line.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The user most likely does not care about the exact order of
operations because he cannot see it happening anyway. Instead,
try to explain what it means to merge two commits into a single
tree.
While at it:
- Change the heading to TRUE MERGE. The entire manual page is
about how merges work.
- Document MERGE_HEAD. It is a useful feature, since it makes
the parents of the intended merge commit easier to refer to.
- Do not assume commits named on the 'git merge' command line come
from another repository. For simplicity, the discussion of
conflicts still does assume that there is only one and it is a
branch head.
- Do not start list items with `code`. Otherwise, a toolchain bug
produces a line break in the generated nroff, resulting in odd
extra space.
Suggested-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Novices sometimes find the behavior of 'git merge' in the
fast-forward case surprising. Describe it thoroughly.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
A merge-based operation in git can fail in two ways: one that
stops before touching anything, or one that goes ahead and
results in conflicts.
As the 'git merge' manual explains:
| A merge is always between the current `HEAD` and one or more
| commits (usually, branch head or tag), and the index file must
| match the tree of `HEAD` commit (i.e. the contents of the last commit)
| when it starts out.
Unfortunately, the placement of this sentence makes it easy to
skip over, and its formulation leaves the important point, that
any other attempted merge will be gracefully aborted, unspoken.
So give this point its own section and expand upon it.
Probably this could be simplified somewhat: after all, a change
registered in the index is just a special kind of local
uncommited change, so the second added paragraph is only a
special case of the first. It seemed more helpful to be explicit
here.
Inspired by <http://gitster.livejournal.com/25801.html>.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The reader unfamiliar with the concepts of branching and merging
would have been completely lost. Try to help him with a diagram.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
So the section layout changes as follows:
NAME
SYNOPSIS
DESCRIPTION
OPTIONS
-MERGE STRATEGIES
HOW MERGE WORKS
HOW CONFLICTS ARE PRESENTED
HOW TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS
EXAMPLES
+MERGE STRATEGIES
CONFIGURATION
SEE ALSO
AUTHOR
DOCUMENTATION
GIT
NOTES
The first-time user will care more about conflicts than about
strategies other than 'recursive'.
One of the examples uses -s ours, but I do not think this hinders
readability.
Suggested-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The 'merge' manual suggests 'reset' to cancel a merge at the end
of the Merge Strategies list. It is more logical to explain this
right before explaining how merge conflicts work, so the daunted
reader can have a way out when he or she needs it most.
While at it, make the advice more dependable and self-contained
by providing the --merge option.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Denton Liu