Re: [PATCH] merge: indicate remote tracking branches in merge message

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 12:31:04AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I somewhat suspect that the patch was not applied because it also lacked
> necessary adjustments to tests.  With this patch, I think the tests would
> fail.

Yeah, see my follow-up patch.

> Nevertheless, I think it is a good thing to do.  But I am unsure about the
> implementation.
> 
> Shouldn't it instead feed what it got from the end user to the dwim
> machinery, and make sure it dwims into refs/remotes/ hierarchy?

I'm not sure that is all that different in practice than what is
happening now. Mainly I did it the way I did so that I didn't touch the
code path for detecting local branches.

But assuming they are functionally identical, I think your patch is much
more readable.

> In other words, like this.  Note that it would be much clearer to see
> what's needed, if you want to extend it to refs/tags hierarchy ;-)

I'm not sure adding "tag foo" will actually work, as it still has to
make it through the bit where we parse FETCH_HEAD. I'm not sure if it
would get mutilated to "commit foo" by that code or not.

-Peff