| Message ID | 20181012212551.7689-4-newren@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | More merge cleanups | expand |
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes: > Each individual file involved in a rename could have also been modified > on both sides of history, meaning it may need to have content merges. > If two such files are renamed into the same location, then on top of the > two natural auto-merging messages we also have to two-way merge the > result, giving us messages that look like > > Auto-merging somefile.c (was somecase.c) > Auto-merging somefile.c (was somefolder.c) > Auto-merging somefile.c > > However, despite the fact that I was the one who put the "(was %s)" > portions into the messages (and just a few months ago), I was still > initially confused when running into a rename/rename(2to1) case and > wondered if somefile.c had been merged three times. Update this to > instead be: > > Auto-merging version of somefile.c from somecase.c > Auto-merging version of somefile.c from someportfolio.c > Auto-merging somefile.c > > This is an admittedly long set of messages for a single path, but you > only get all three messages when dealing with the rare case of a > rename/rename(2to1) conflict where both sides of both original files > were also modified, in conflicting ways. Yeah, that does look mouthful, but definitely is more understandable.
diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c index 2452788d28..33cd9ee81f 100644 --- a/merge-recursive.c +++ b/merge-recursive.c @@ -1679,8 +1679,8 @@ static int handle_rename_rename_2to1(struct merge_options *o, remove_file(o, 1, a->path, o->call_depth || would_lose_untracked(a->path)); remove_file(o, 1, b->path, o->call_depth || would_lose_untracked(b->path)); - path_side_1_desc = xstrfmt("%s (was %s)", path, a->path); - path_side_2_desc = xstrfmt("%s (was %s)", path, b->path); + path_side_1_desc = xstrfmt("version of %s from %s", path, a->path); + path_side_2_desc = xstrfmt("version of %s from %s", path, b->path); if (merge_mode_and_contents(o, a, c1, &ci->ren1_other, path_side_1_desc, o->branch1, o->branch2, o->call_depth * 2, &mfi_c1) ||
Each individual file involved in a rename could have also been modified on both sides of history, meaning it may need to have content merges. If two such files are renamed into the same location, then on top of the two natural auto-merging messages we also have to two-way merge the result, giving us messages that look like Auto-merging somefile.c (was somecase.c) Auto-merging somefile.c (was somefolder.c) Auto-merging somefile.c However, despite the fact that I was the one who put the "(was %s)" portions into the messages (and just a few months ago), I was still initially confused when running into a rename/rename(2to1) case and wondered if somefile.c had been merged three times. Update this to instead be: Auto-merging version of somefile.c from somecase.c Auto-merging version of somefile.c from someportfolio.c Auto-merging somefile.c This is an admittedly long set of messages for a single path, but you only get all three messages when dealing with the rare case of a rename/rename(2to1) conflict where both sides of both original files were also modified, in conflicting ways. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> --- merge-recursive.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)