Hi Eric, On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:38 AM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c > > @@ -2932,7 +2966,8 @@ static int do_merge(struct commit *commit, const char > > *arg, int arg_len, > > - strbuf_addf(&buf, "Merge branch '%.*s'", > > + strbuf_addf(&buf, "Merge %s '%.*s'", > > + to_merge->next ? "branches" : "branch", > > Error messages in this file are already localizable. If this text ever > becomes localizable, then this "sentence lego" could be problematic > for translators. As pointed out by Junio, this is not really a message eligible for localization, at least not right now. If it becomes localized later, it will be very easy to change the sentence lego then. I am just wary of making life harder for the compiler that wants to verify that the printf() style parameters match the format. > > @@ -2956,28 +2991,76 @@ static int do_merge(struct commit *commit, const > > char *arg, int arg_len, > > + cmd.git_cmd = 1; > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "merge"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "-s"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "octopus"); > > argv_array_pushl(&cmd.args, "-s", "octopus", NULL); > > which would make it clear that these two arguments must remain > together, and prevent someone from coming along and inserting a new > argument between them. I use a single `argv_array_pushl()` call now, with intuitive line wrapping. > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "--no-edit"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "--no-ff"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "--no-log"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "--no-stat"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, "-F"); > > + argv_array_push(&cmd.args, git_path_merge_msg()); > > Ditto: > argv_array_pushl(&cmd.args, "-L", git_path_merge_msg(), NULL); > > > diff --git a/t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh b/t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh > > @@ -329,4 +329,38 @@ test_expect_success 'labels that are object IDs are > > rewritten' ' > > +test_expect_success 'octopus merges' ' > > + git checkout -b three && > > + test_commit before-octopus && > > + test_commit three && > > + git checkout -b two HEAD^ && > > + test_commit two && > > + git checkout -b one HEAD^ && > > + test_commit one && > > + test_tick && > > + (GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="Hank" GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL="hank@sea.world" \ > > + git merge -m "Tüntenfüsch" two three) && > > Unnecessary subshell? Yes, I agree. I don't recall why I did it that way, probably I tried something else originally that required a subshell, or something. Thank you for helping me make the patches better. Ciao, Dscho
