FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Marlene Cote]

I used merge with -no-commit -no-ff.  So, I assume I won't see any change in behavior, since merge is not performing commits, right?

------------------
Regards,
Marlene Cote, Release Engineering
978-268-0821

Re: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On 02/24/2012 03:33 PM, Marlene Cote wrote:
>
> I used merge with -no-commit -no-ff.  So, I assume I won't see any change in behavior, since merge is not performing commits, right?
Hi Marlene,
--no-commit only stops the last step, i.e. making of the commit. The 
tree (working files) is changed before that. So basically after a merge 
with --no-commit, your tree will be dirty and git status will show 
modified files.

zbyszek

RE: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Marlene Cote]

I know that the tree will be dirty.  The change to git in 1.7.10 says that the merge will require a commit message when the command is run.  Since I am not committing, I need to supply a message, but only later when I commit.  Not when I execute the merge command.  This means my scripts don't have to change.

-----Original Message-----
From: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [mailto:zbyszek@in.waw.pl] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Marlene Cote
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

On 02/24/2012 03:33 PM, Marlene Cote wrote:
>
> I used merge with -no-commit -no-ff.  So, I assume I won't see any change in behavior, since merge is not performing commits, right?
Hi Marlene,
--no-commit only stops the last step, i.e. making of the commit. The tree (working files) is changed before that. So basically after a merge with --no-commit, your tree will be dirty and git status will show modified files.

zbyszek

Re: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Junio C Hamano]

Marlene Cote <Marlene_Cote@affirmednetworks.com> writes:

> I used merge with -no-commit -no-ff. So, I assume I won't see any
> change in behavior, since merge is not performing commits, right?

The _only_ difference is when

 (1) "git merge" is run interactively;
 (2) the merge goes cleanly that it does not need to ask help from the
     user to resolve conflicts; and
 (3) it records the result by creating a commit.

Because your use case with "--no-commit" does not satisfy the last
criteria, I do not expect you to see any difference.  Otherwise you may
have found a bug.

As noted in

    http://git-blame.blogspot.com/2012/02/anticipating-git-1710.html

please try out the version from the 'master' branch before it gets
released, so that you can help us avoid surprises in the corner cases.

Thanks.

Re: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Junio C Hamano]

Marlene Cote <Marlene_Cote@affirmednetworks.com> writes:

> I know that the tree will be dirty.  The change to git in 1.7.10 says
> that the merge will require a commit message when the command is run.

I do not think I ever said that.

	"merge" will always start an editor when it auto-commits

is what I said.

Could you point me where you read that "will require a commit message", so
that it can be corrected?

RE: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Marlene Cote]

Sorry.  You are correct.  You said it would open an editor session.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@pobox.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Marlene Cote
Cc: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek; git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

Marlene Cote <Marlene_Cote@affirmednetworks.com> writes:

> I know that the tree will be dirty.  The change to git in 1.7.10 says 
> that the merge will require a commit message when the command is run.

I do not think I ever said that.

	"merge" will always start an editor when it auto-commits

is what I said.

Could you point me where you read that "will require a commit message", so that it can be corrected?

Re: FW: question about merge in 1.7.10

[Junio C Hamano]

Marlene Cote <Marlene_Cote@affirmednetworks.com> writes:

> Sorry.  You are correct.  You said it would open an editor session.  

Whew.  I was really worried that we may be sending a wrong message and
making users needlessly afraid of changes.

Thanks for a prompt response.