Hallo Johannes,

Johannes Schindelin schrieb am Tue 25. Mar, 21:04 (+0100):
quoted text
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, J=F6rg Sommer wrote:
> > Junio C Hamano schrieb am Mon 24. Mar, 09:45 (-0700):
> > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> > > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I unfortunately do not recall why _prepend_, and not _replace_, ha=
d=20
quoted text
> > > >> to be the right behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/31896/match=
=3Dgit+merge+make+usable
quoted text
> > >=20
> > > So it was "my suspicion that people who would want to pass -m would=
=20
quoted text
> > > want it to behave this way".
> > >=20
> > > I do not care deeply either way myself, as I never have found use for=
=20
quoted text
> > > -m to the merge command, but I think it could have been argued either=
=20
quoted text
> > > way.
> >=20
> > I would like to argue for the replace way. :) Take git rebase -p as an=
=20
quoted text
> > example. If a merge is included in the rebase, it's redone with git=20
> > merge -m. Because git rebase works with detached heads you get merge=20
> > messages like this: [...]
>=20
> That only means that the original author of rebase -p was a lazy bastard=
=20
quoted text
> and did not use the proper way to call git-merge, namely
>=20
> 	git <msg> HEAD <the-other-branch>

It this really a proper way to call git merge? The manpage says:

    The second syntax (<msg> HEAD <remote>) is supported for historical
    reasons. Do not use it from the command line or in new scripts. It is
    the same as git merge -m <msg> <remote>.

And how would you pass the option for the strategy to this form? Git
rebase calls git merge with -s.

Bye, J=F6rg.
--=20
But in the case of "git revert", it should be an ancestor (or the user
is just insane, in which case it doesn't matter - insane people can do
insane things)
Linus Torvalds <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801041031590.2811@woody.linux-foundation.o=
rg>