mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Vishal Verma <>
Cc:, "Rafael Ascensão" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/merge-options: clarify --squash behavior
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:16:25 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Vishal Verma's message of "Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:22:12 -0600")

Vishal Verma <> writes:

> Add a note to the --squash option for git-merge to clarify its behavior
> with respect to --commit. When --squash is supplied, 'option_commit' is
> silently dropped. This can be surprising to a user who tries to override
> the no-commit behavior of squash using --commit explicitly.
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <>
> ---
> There may be an argument to make --commit 'just work' with squash, but
> that might involve changing option_commit from OPT_BOOL to something
> that can distinguish between the default, what's requested on the
> command line, or the --no- version.

I think it is bad to silently ignore the option.  With or without
this documentation update, I think it is sensible to update the code
so that it errors out when "--squash --commit" are both given at the
same time, just like when "--squash --no-ff" is given.

Or make it "just work" as you said.  Using a boolean variable as
tristate is something we do in many places and it by itself is not a
rocket science.  You initialize the variable to -1 (unset), let
parse_options() to set it to 0/1 when "--[no-]commit" is seen, and
inspect after parse_options() finishes.  If the variable is still
-1, you know the user wants "the default" behaviour.

The "default" behaviour you are proposing would probably be
something like

        if (option_commit < 0) {
                 * default to record the result in a commit.
                 * but --squash traditionally does not.
                if (!squash)
                        option_commit = 1;
                        option_commit = 0;

But I suspect that the option parsing part is the least difficult in
the "make it just work" change.  That is because I think that the
machinery to record the result in a commit is not expecting to be
asked to create a single-parent commit to record the result of the
squashing, so there may be need for adjusting to how the result
wants to be recorded before the code makes a commit.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-25  4:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-24 21:22 [PATCH] Documentation/merge-options: clarify --squash behavior Vishal Verma
2019-04-25  4:16 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-04-25 16:26   ` Vishal Verma
2019-04-26 21:17     ` [PATCH v2] builtin/merges: clarify --squash behavior with --commit vishal

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).