1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-18 06:54:55 +01:00
git/Documentation/merge-options.txt

108 lines
3.3 KiB
Text
Raw Normal View History

--commit::
--no-commit::
Perform the merge and commit the result. This option can
be used to override --no-commit.
+
With --no-commit perform the merge but pretend the merge
failed and do not autocommit, to give the user a chance to
inspect and further tweak the merge result before committing.
--edit::
merge: use editor by default in interactive sessions Traditionally, a cleanly resolved merge was committed by "git merge" using the auto-generated merge commit log message without invoking the editor. After 5 years of use in the field, it turns out that people perform too many unjustified merges of the upstream history into their topic branches. These merges are not just useless, but they are often not explained well, and making the end result unreadable when it gets time for merging their history back to their upstream. Earlier we added the "--edit" option to the command, so that people can edit the log message to explain and justify their merge commits. Let's take it one step further and spawn the editor by default when we are in an interactive session (i.e. the standard input and the standard output are pointing at the same tty device). There may be existing scripts that leave the standard input and the standard output of the "git merge" connected to whatever environment the scripts were started, and such invocation might trigger the above "interactive session" heuristics. GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT environment variable can be set to "no" at the beginning of such scripts to use the historical behaviour while the script runs. Note that this backward compatibility is meant only for scripts, and we deliberately do *not* support "merge.edit = yes/no/auto" configuration option to allow people to keep the historical behaviour. Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-01-11 07:44:45 +01:00
--no-edit::
Invoke an editor before committing successful mechanical merge to
further edit the auto-generated merge message, so that the user
can explain and justify the merge. The `--no-edit` option can be
used to accept the auto-generated message (this is generally
discouraged). The `--edit` option is still useful if you are
giving a draft message with the `-m` option from the command line
and want to edit it in the editor.
+
merge: use editor by default in interactive sessions Traditionally, a cleanly resolved merge was committed by "git merge" using the auto-generated merge commit log message without invoking the editor. After 5 years of use in the field, it turns out that people perform too many unjustified merges of the upstream history into their topic branches. These merges are not just useless, but they are often not explained well, and making the end result unreadable when it gets time for merging their history back to their upstream. Earlier we added the "--edit" option to the command, so that people can edit the log message to explain and justify their merge commits. Let's take it one step further and spawn the editor by default when we are in an interactive session (i.e. the standard input and the standard output are pointing at the same tty device). There may be existing scripts that leave the standard input and the standard output of the "git merge" connected to whatever environment the scripts were started, and such invocation might trigger the above "interactive session" heuristics. GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT environment variable can be set to "no" at the beginning of such scripts to use the historical behaviour while the script runs. Note that this backward compatibility is meant only for scripts, and we deliberately do *not* support "merge.edit = yes/no/auto" configuration option to allow people to keep the historical behaviour. Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-01-11 07:44:45 +01:00
Older scripts may depend on the historical behaviour of not allowing the
user to edit the merge log message. They will see an editor opened when
they run `git merge`. To make it easier to adjust such scripts to the
updated behaviour, the environment variable `GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT` can be
set to `no` at the beginning of them.
--ff::
When the merge resolves as a fast-forward, only update the branch
pointer, without creating a merge commit. This is the default
behavior.
--no-ff::
Create a merge commit even when the merge resolves as a
fast-forward.
--ff-only::
Refuse to merge and exit with a non-zero status unless the
current `HEAD` is already up-to-date or the merge can be
resolved as a fast-forward.
--log[=<n>]::
--no-log::
In addition to branch names, populate the log message with
one-line descriptions from at most <n> actual commits that are being
merged. See also linkgit:git-fmt-merge-msg[1].
+
With --no-log do not list one-line descriptions from the
actual commits being merged.
--stat::
-n::
--no-stat::
Show a diffstat at the end of the merge. The diffstat is also
controlled by the configuration option merge.stat.
+
With -n or --no-stat do not show a diffstat at the end of the
merge.
git-merge --squash Some people tend to do many little commits on a topic branch, recording all the trials and errors, and when the topic is reasonably cooked well, would want to record the net effect of the series as one commit on top of the mainline, removing the cruft from the history. The topic is then abandoned or forked off again from that point at the mainline. The barebone porcelainish that comes with core git tools does not officially support such operation, but you can fake it by using "git pull --no-merge" when such a topic branch is not a strict superset of the mainline, like this: git checkout mainline git pull --no-commit . that-topic-branch : fix conflicts if any rm -f .git/MERGE_HEAD git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message' git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged This however does not work when the topic branch is a fast forward of the mainline, because normal "git pull" will never create a merge commit in such a case, and there is nothing special --no-commit could do to begin with. This patch introduces a new option, --squash, to support such a workflow officially in both fast-forward case and true merge case. The user-level operation would be the same in both cases: git checkout mainline git pull --squash . that-topic-branch : fix conflicts if any -- naturally, there would be : no conflict if fast forward. git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message' git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged When the current branch is already up-to-date with respect to the other branch, there truly is nothing to do, so the new option does not have any effect. This was brought up in #git IRC channel recently. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-06-23 10:37:02 +02:00
--squash::
--no-squash::
git-merge --squash Some people tend to do many little commits on a topic branch, recording all the trials and errors, and when the topic is reasonably cooked well, would want to record the net effect of the series as one commit on top of the mainline, removing the cruft from the history. The topic is then abandoned or forked off again from that point at the mainline. The barebone porcelainish that comes with core git tools does not officially support such operation, but you can fake it by using "git pull --no-merge" when such a topic branch is not a strict superset of the mainline, like this: git checkout mainline git pull --no-commit . that-topic-branch : fix conflicts if any rm -f .git/MERGE_HEAD git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message' git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged This however does not work when the topic branch is a fast forward of the mainline, because normal "git pull" will never create a merge commit in such a case, and there is nothing special --no-commit could do to begin with. This patch introduces a new option, --squash, to support such a workflow officially in both fast-forward case and true merge case. The user-level operation would be the same in both cases: git checkout mainline git pull --squash . that-topic-branch : fix conflicts if any -- naturally, there would be : no conflict if fast forward. git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message' git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged When the current branch is already up-to-date with respect to the other branch, there truly is nothing to do, so the new option does not have any effect. This was brought up in #git IRC channel recently. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-06-23 10:37:02 +02:00
Produce the working tree and index state as if a real
merge happened (except for the merge information),
but do not actually make a commit or
git-merge --squash Some people tend to do many little commits on a topic branch, recording all the trials and errors, and when the topic is reasonably cooked well, would want to record the net effect of the series as one commit on top of the mainline, removing the cruft from the history. The topic is then abandoned or forked off again from that point at the mainline. The barebone porcelainish that comes with core git tools does not officially support such operation, but you can fake it by using "git pull --no-merge" when such a topic branch is not a strict superset of the mainline, like this: git checkout mainline git pull --no-commit . that-topic-branch : fix conflicts if any rm -f .git/MERGE_HEAD git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message' git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged This however does not work when the topic branch is a fast forward of the mainline, because normal "git pull" will never create a merge commit in such a case, and there is nothing special --no-commit could do to begin with. This patch introduces a new option, --squash, to support such a workflow officially in both fast-forward case and true merge case. The user-level operation would be the same in both cases: git checkout mainline git pull --squash . that-topic-branch : fix conflicts if any -- naturally, there would be : no conflict if fast forward. git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message' git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged When the current branch is already up-to-date with respect to the other branch, there truly is nothing to do, so the new option does not have any effect. This was brought up in #git IRC channel recently. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-06-23 10:37:02 +02:00
move the `HEAD`, nor record `$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD` to
cause the next `git commit` command to create a merge
commit. This allows you to create a single commit on
top of the current branch whose effect is the same as
merging another branch (or more in case of an octopus).
+
With --no-squash perform the merge and commit the result. This
option can be used to override --squash.
-s <strategy>::
--strategy=<strategy>::
Use the given merge strategy; can be supplied more than
once to specify them in the order they should be tried.
If there is no `-s` option, a built-in list of strategies
is used instead ('git merge-recursive' when merging a single
head, 'git merge-octopus' otherwise).
-X <option>::
--strategy-option=<option>::
Pass merge strategy specific option through to the merge
strategy.
--summary::
--no-summary::
Synonyms to --stat and --no-stat; these are deprecated and will be
removed in the future.
ifndef::git-pull[]
-q::
--quiet::
Operate quietly. Implies --no-progress.
-v::
--verbose::
Be verbose.
--progress::
--no-progress::
Turn progress on/off explicitly. If neither is specified,
progress is shown if standard error is connected to a terminal.
Note that not all merge strategies may support progress
reporting.
endif::git-pull[]