| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
We presently use the ".txt" extension for our AsciiDoc files. While not
wrong, most editors do not associate this extension with AsciiDoc,
meaning that contributors don't get automatic editor functionality that
could be useful, such as syntax highlighting and prose linting.
It is much more common to use the ".adoc" extension for AsciiDoc files,
since this helps editors automatically detect files and also allows
various forges to provide rich (HTML-like) rendering. Let's do that
here, renaming all of the files and updating the includes where
relevant. Adjust the various build scripts and makefiles to use the new
extension as well.
Note that this should not result in any user-visible changes to the
documentation.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Doc update.
* ml/doc-merge-updates:
Documentation/git-merge.txt: use backticks for command wrapping
Documentation/git-merge.txt: fix reference to synopsis
|
|
As René found in the guidance from CodingGuidelines:
Literal examples (e.g. use of command-line options, command names,
branch names, URLs, pathnames (files and directories), configuration
and environment variables) must be typeset in monospace (i.e. wrapped
with backticks)
So all instances of single and double quotes for wraping said examples
were replaced with simple backticks.
Suggested-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Lohmann <mi.al.lohmann@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
437591a9d738 combined the synopsis of "The second syntax" (meaning `git
merge --abort`) and "The third syntax" (for `git merge --continue`) into
this single line:
git merge (--continue | --abort | --quit)
but it was still referred to when describing the preconditions that have
to be fulfilled to run the respective actions. In other words:
References by number are no longer valid after a merge of some of the
synopses.
Also the previous version of the documentation did not acknowledge that
`--no-commit` would result in the precondition being fulfilled (thanks
to Elijah Newren and Junio C Hamano for pointing that out).
This change also groups `--abort` and `--continue` together when
explaining the prerequisites in order to avoid duplication.
Helped-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Lohmann <mi.al.lohmann@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
A handful of manual pages called AUTO_MERGE a "special ref", but
there is nothing special about it. It merely is yet another
pseudoref.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Diff best viewed with --color-diff.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Since 5291828df8 (merge-ort: write $GIT_DIR/AUTO_MERGE whenever we hit a
conflict, 2021-03-20), when using the 'ort' merge strategy, the special
ref AUTO_MERGE is written when a merge operation results in conflicts.
This ref points to a tree recording the conflicted state of the working
tree and is very useful during conflict resolution. However, this ref is
not documented.
Add some documentation for AUTO_MERGE in git-diff(1), git-merge(1),
gitrevisions(7) and in the user manual.
In git-diff(1), mention it at the end of the description section, when
we mention that the command also accepts trees instead of commits, and
also add an invocation to the "Various ways to check your working tree"
example.
In git-merge(1), add a step to the list of things that happen "when it
is not obvious how to reconcile the changes", under the "True merge"
section. Also mention AUTO_MERGE in the "How to resolve conflicts"
section, when mentioning 'git diff'.
In gitrevisions(7), add a mention of AUTO_MERGE along with the other
special refs.
In the user manual, add a paragraph describing AUTO_MERGE to the
"Getting conflict-resolution help during a merge" section, and include
an example of a 'git diff AUTO_MERGE' invocation for the example
conflict used in that section. Note that for uniformity we do not use
backticks around AUTO_MERGE here since the rest of the document does not
typeset special refs differently.
Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1471
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The "True merge" section of the 'git merge' documentation mentions that
in case of conflicts, the conflicted working tree files contain "the
result of the "merge" program". This probably refers to RCS's 'merge'
program, which is mentioned further down under "How conflicts are
presented".
Since it is not clear at that point of the document which program is
referred to, and since most modern readers probably do not relate to RCS
anyway, let's just write "the merge operation" instead.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The fact that 'git merge' writes 'ORIG_HEAD' before performing the merge
is missing from the documentation of the command.
Mention it in the 'Description' section.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Share the text used to explain configuration variables used by "git
<subcmd>" in "git help <subcmd>" with the text from "git help config".
* ab/dedup-config-and-command-docs:
docs: add CONFIGURATION sections that fuzzy map to built-ins
docs: add CONFIGURATION sections that map to a built-in
log docs: de-duplicate configuration sections
difftool docs: de-duplicate configuration sections
notes docs: de-duplicate and combine configuration sections
apply docs: de-duplicate configuration sections
send-email docs: de-duplicate configuration sections
grep docs: de-duplicate configuration sections
docs: add and use include template for config/* includes
|
|
In b6a8d09f6d8 (gc docs: include the "gc.*" section from "config" in
"gc", 2019-04-07) the "git gc" documentation was made to include the
config/gc.txt in its "CONFIGURATION" section. We do that in several
other places, but "git gc" was the only one with a blurb above the
include to orient the reader.
We don't want readers to carefully scrutinize "git-config(1)" and
"git-gc(1)" looking for discrepancies, instead we should tell them
that the latter includes a part of the former.
This change formalizes that wording in two new templates to be
included, one for the "git gc" case where the entire section is
included from "git-config(1)", and another for when the inclusion of
"git-config(1)" follows discussion unique to that documentation. In
order to use that re-arrange the order of those being discussed in the
"git-merge(1)" documentation.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@usp.br>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The `--rerere-autoupdate` option is shared across 5 commands, and
are described the same way because it works exactly the same way in
these commands.
Create a separate file and include it from the help pages for these
commands, so that we can improve the description at one place to
improve all of them at once, and keep them in sync.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The default merge message prepared by "git merge" records the name
of the current branch; the name can be overridden with a new option
to allow users to pretend a merge is made on a different branch.
* jc/merge-detached-head-name:
merge: allow to pretend a merge is made into a different branch
|
|
When a series of patches for a topic-B depends on having topic-A,
the workflow to prepare the topic-B branch would look like this:
$ git checkout -b topic-B main
$ git merge --no-ff --no-edit topic-A
$ git am <mbox-for-topic-B
When topic-A gets updated, recreating the first merge and rebasing
the rest of the topic-B, all on detached HEAD, is a useful
technique. After updating topic-A with its new round of patches:
$ git checkout topic-B
$ prev=$(git rev-parse 'HEAD^{/^Merge branch .topic-A. into}')
$ git checkout --detach $prev^1
$ git merge --no-ff --no-edit topic-A
$ git rebase --onto HEAD $prev @{-1}^0
$ git checkout -B @{-1}
This will
(0) check out the current topic-B.
(1) find the previous merge of topic-A into topic-B.
(2) detach the HEAD to the parent of the previous merge.
(3) merge the updated topic-A to it.
(4) reapply the patches to rebuild the rest of topic-B.
(5) update topic-B with the result.
without contaminating the reflog of topic-B too much. topic-B@{1}
is the "logically previous" state before topic-A got updated, for
example. At (4), comparison (e.g. range-diff) between HEAD and
@{-1} is a meaningful way to sanity check the result, and the same
can be done at (5) by comparing topic-B and topic-B@{1}.
But there is one glitch. The merge into the detached HEAD done in
the step (3) above gives us "Merge branch 'topic-A' into HEAD", and
does not say "into topic-B".
Teach the "--into-name=<branch>" option to "git merge" and its
underlying "git fmt-merge-message", to pretend as if we were merging
into <branch>, no matter what branch we are actually merging into,
when they prepare the merge message. The pretend name honors the
usual "into <target>" suppression mechanism, which can be seen in
the tests added here.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
git-pull.txt includes merge-options.txt, which is written assuming
merges will happen. git-pull has allowed rebases for many years; update
the documentation to reflect that.
While at it, pass any `--signoff` flag through to the rebase backend too
so that we don't have to document it as merge-specific. Rebase has
supported the --signoff flag for years now as well.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
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>
|
|
Two new commands "git switch" and "git restore" are introduced to
split "checking out a branch to work on advancing its history" and
"checking out paths out of the index and/or a tree-ish to work on
advancing the current history" out of the single "git checkout"
command.
* nd/switch-and-restore: (46 commits)
completion: disable dwim on "git switch -d"
switch: allow to switch in the middle of bisect
t2027: use test_must_be_empty
Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental
help: move git-diff and git-reset to different groups
doc: promote "git restore"
user-manual.txt: prefer 'merge --abort' over 'reset --hard'
completion: support restore
t: add tests for restore
restore: support --patch
restore: replace --force with --ignore-unmerged
restore: default to --source=HEAD when only --staged is specified
restore: reject invalid combinations with --staged
restore: add --worktree and --staged
checkout: factor out worktree checkout code
restore: disable overlay mode by default
restore: make pathspec mandatory
restore: take tree-ish from --source option instead
checkout: split part of it to new command 'restore'
doc: promote "git switch"
...
|
|
Docfix.
* pw/doc-synopsis-markup-opmode-options:
show --continue/skip etc. consistently in synopsis
|
|
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>
|
|
"git merge" learned "--quit" option that cleans up the in-progress
merge while leaving the working tree and the index still in a mess.
* nd/merge-quit:
merge: add --quit
merge: remove drop_save() in favor of remove_merge_branch_state()
|
|
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>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The recursive merge strategy did not properly ensure there was no
change between HEAD and the index before performing its operation,
which has been corrected.
* en/dirty-merge-fixes:
merge: fix misleading pre-merge check documentation
merge-recursive: enforce rule that index matches head before merging
t6044: add more testcases with staged changes before a merge is invoked
merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
merge-recursive: make sure when we say we abort that we actually abort
t6044: add a testcase for index matching head, when head doesn't match HEAD
t6044: verify that merges expected to abort actually abort
index_has_changes(): avoid assuming operating on the_index
read-cache.c: move index_has_changes() from merge.c
|
|
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 c0be8aa06b85 ("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 ee6566e8d70d ("[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 160252f81626 ("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 3ec62ad9ffba ("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
a6ee883b8eb5 ("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 65170c07d466 ("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>
|
|
Fix old merge glitch in Documentation during v2.13-rc0 era.
* mw/doc-merge-enumfix:
doc: update the order of the syntax `git merge --continue`
|
|
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>
|
|
"git pull" has been taught to accept "--[no-]signoff" option and
pass it down to "git merge".
* wk/pull-signoff:
pull: pass --signoff/--no-signoff to "git merge"
|
|
Doc updates.
* wk/merge-options-gpg-sign-doc:
Documentation/merge-options.txt: describe -S/--gpg-sign for 'pull'
|
|
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>
|
|
Message and doc updates.
* ma/up-to-date:
treewide: correct several "up-to-date" to "up to date"
Documentation/user-manual: update outdated example output
|
|
Killing "git merge --edit" before the editor returns control left
the repository in a state with MERGE_MSG but without MERGE_HEAD,
which incorrectly tells the subsequent "git commit" that there was
a squash merge in progress. This has been fixed.
* mg/killed-merge:
merge: save merge state earlier
merge: split write_merge_state in two
merge: clarify call chain
Documentation/git-merge: explain --continue
|
|
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>
|
|
Stop supporting "git merge <message> HEAD <commit>" syntax that has
been deprecated since October 2007, and issues a deprecation
warning message since v2.5.0.
* jc/merge-drop-old-syntax:
merge: drop 'git merge <message> HEAD <commit>' syntax
|
|
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>
|
|
Very small number of options take a parameter that is optional
(which is not a great UI element as they can only appear at the end
of the command line). Add notice to documentation of each and
every one of them.
* mm/keyid-docs:
Documentation: explain optional arguments better
Documentation/grep: fix documentation of -O
Documentation: use 'keyid' consistently, not 'key-id'
|
|
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>
|
|
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 descriptions that are set with "git branch --edit-description"
option were used in many places but they weren't clearly documented.
* po/doc-branch-desc:
doc: show usage of branch description
|
|
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>
|
