The recursive merge strategy did not properly ensure there was no
change between HEAD and the index before performing its operation,
which has been corrected.
* en/dirty-merge-fixes:
merge: fix misleading pre-merge check documentation
merge-recursive: enforce rule that index matches head before merging
t6044: add more testcases with staged changes before a merge is invoked
merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
merge-recursive: make sure when we say we abort that we actually abort
t6044: add a testcase for index matching head, when head doesn't match HEAD
t6044: verify that merges expected to abort actually abort
index_has_changes(): avoid assuming operating on the_index
read-cache.c: move index_has_changes() from merge.c
This is consistent with `git commit` which, like `git merge`, supports
passing the commit message via `-m <msg>` and, unlike `git merge` before
this patch, via `-F <file>`.
It is useful to allow this for scripted use, or for the upcoming patch
to allow (re-)creating octopus merges in `git rebase --rebase-merges`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
builtin/merge.c contains this important requirement for merge strategies:
...the index must be in sync with the head commit. The strategies are
responsible to ensure this.
However, Documentation/git-merge.txt says:
...[merge will] abort if there are any changes registered in the index
relative to the `HEAD` commit. (One exception is when the changed
index entries are in the state that would result from the merge
already.)
Interestingly, prior to commit c0be8aa06b ("Documentation/git-merge.txt:
Partial rewrite of How Merge Works", 2008-07-19),
Documentation/git-merge.txt said much more:
...the index file must match the tree of `HEAD` commit...
[NOTE]
This is a bit of a lie. In certain special cases [explained
in detail]...
Otherwise, merge will refuse to do any harm to your repository
(that is...your working tree...and index are left intact).
So, this suggests that the exceptions existed because there were special
cases where it would case no harm, and potentially be slightly more
convenient for the user. While the current text in git-merge.txt does
list a condition under which it would be safe to proceed despite the index
not matching HEAD, it does not match what is actually implemented, in
three different ways:
* The exception is written to describe what unpack-trees allows. Not
all merge strategies allow such an exception, though, making this
description misleading. 'ours' and 'octopus' merges have strictly
enforced index==HEAD for a while, and the commit previous to this
one made 'recursive' do so as well.
* If someone did a three-way content merge on a specific file using
versions from the relevant commits and staged it prior to running
merge, then that path would technically satisfy the exception listed
in git-merge.txt. unpack-trees.c would still error out on the path,
though, because it defers the three-way content merge logic to other
parts of the code (resolve, octopus, or recursive) and has no way of
checking whether the index entry from before the merge will match
the end result of the merge.
* The exception as implemented in unpack-trees actually only checked
that the index matched the MERGE_HEAD version of the file and that
HEAD matched the merge base. Assuming no renames, that would indeed
provide cases where the index matches the end result we'd get from a
merge. But renames means unpack-trees is checking that it instead
matches something other than what the final result will be, risking
either erroring out when we shouldn't need to, or not erroring out
when we should and overwriting the user's staged changes.
In addition to the wording behind this exception being misleading, it is
also somewhat surprising to see how many times the code for the special
cases were wrong or the check to make sure the index matched head was
forgotten altogether:
* Prior to commit ee6566e8d7 ("[PATCH] Rewrite read-tree", 2005-09-05),
there were many cases where an unclean index entry was allowed (look for
merged_entry_allow_dirty()); it appears that in those cases, the merge
would have simply overwritten staged changes with the result of the
merge. Thus, the merge result would have been correct, but the user's
uncommitted changes could be thrown away without warning.
* Prior to commit 160252f816 ("git-merge-ours: make sure our index
matches HEAD", 2005-11-03), the 'ours' merge strategy did not check
whether the index matched HEAD. If it didn't, the resulting merge
would include all the staged changes, and thus wasn't really an 'ours'
strategy.
* Prior to commit 3ec62ad9ff ("merge-octopus: abort if index does not
match HEAD", 2016-04-09), 'octopus' merges did not check whether the
index matched HEAD, also resulting in any staged changes from before
the commit silently being folded into the resulting merge. commit
a6ee883b8e ("t6044: new merge testcases for when index doesn't match
HEAD", 2016-04-09) was also added at the same time to try to test to
make sure all strategies did the necessary checking for the requirement
that the index match HEAD. Sadly, it didn't catch all the cases, as
evidenced by the remainder of this list...
* Prior to commit 65170c07d4 ("merge-recursive: avoid incorporating
uncommitted changes in a merge", 2017-12-21), merge-recursive simply
relied on unpack_trees() to do the necessary check, but in one special
case it avoided calling unpack_trees() entirely and accidentally ended
up silently including any staged changes from before the merge in the
resulting merge commit.
* The commit immediately before this one in this series noted that the
exceptions were written in a way that assumed no renames, making it
unsafe for merge-recursive to use. merge-recursive was modified to
use its own check to enforce that index==HEAD.
This history makes it very tempting to go into builtin/merge.c and replace
the comment that strategies must enforce that index matches HEAD with code
that just enforces it. At this point, that would only affect the
'resolve' strategy; all other strategies have each been modified to
manually enforce it. (However, note that index==HEAD is not strictly
enforced for fast-forward merges, as those are not considered a merge
strategy and they trigger in builtin/merge.c before the section in the
code where the relevant comment is found.)
But, even if we don't take the step of just fixing these problems by
enforcing index==HEAD for all strategies, we at least need to update this
misleading documentation in git-merge.txt. For now, just modify the claim
in Documentation/git-merge.txt to fix the error. The precise details
around combination of merges strategies and special cases probably is not
relevant to most users, so simply state that exceptions may exist but are
narrow and vary depending upon which merge strategy is in use.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The syntax "git merge <message> HEAD <commit>" has been removed. The
order of the syntax should also be updated.
Signed-off-by: Meng-Sung Wu <mengsungwu@fortunewhite.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git pull" has been taught to accept "--[no-]signoff" option and
pass it down to "git merge".
* wk/pull-signoff:
pull: pass --signoff/--no-signoff to "git merge"
merge can take --signoff, but without pull passing --signoff down, it
is inconvenient to use; allow 'pull' to take the option and pass it
through.
The order of options in merge-options.txt is mostly alphabetical by
long option since 7c85d274 (Documentation/merge-options.txt: order
options in alphabetical groups, 2009-10-22). The long-option bit
didn't make it into the commit message, but it's under the fold in
[1]. I've put --signoff between --log and --stat to preserve the
alphabetical order.
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/87iqe7zspn.fsf@jondo.cante.net/
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Pull has supported these since ea230d8 (pull: add the --gpg-sign
option, 2014-02-10). Insert in long-option alphabetical order
following 7c85d274 (Documentation/merge-options.txt: order options
in alphabetical groups, 2009-10-22).
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Message and doc updates.
* ma/up-to-date:
treewide: correct several "up-to-date" to "up to date"
Documentation/user-manual: update outdated example output
Killing "git merge --edit" before the editor returns control left
the repository in a state with MERGE_MSG but without MERGE_HEAD,
which incorrectly tells the subsequent "git commit" that there was
a squash merge in progress. This has been fixed.
* mg/killed-merge:
merge: save merge state earlier
merge: split write_merge_state in two
merge: clarify call chain
Documentation/git-merge: explain --continue
Follow the Oxford style, which says to use "up-to-date" before the noun,
but "up to date" after it. Don't change plumbing (specifically
send-pack.c, but transport.c (git push) also has the same string).
This was produced by grepping for "up-to-date" and "up to date". It
turned out we only had to edit in one direction, removing the hyphens.
Fix a typo in Documentation/git-diff-index.txt while we're there.
Reported-by: Jeffrey Manian <jeffrey.manian@gmail.com>
Reported-by: STEVEN WHITE <stevencharleswhitevoices@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Currently, 'git merge --continue' is mentioned but not explained.
Explain it.
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some projects require every commit, even merges, to be signed off
[*1*]. Because "git merge" does not have a "--signoff" option like
"git commit" does, the user needs to add one manually when the
command presents an editor to describe the merge, or later use "git
commit --amend --signoff".
Help developers of these projects by teaching "--signoff" option to
"git merge".
*1* https://public-inbox.org/git/CAHv71zK5SqbwrBFX=a8-DY9H3KT4FEyMgv__p2gZzNr0WUAPUw@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
Requested-by: Dan Kohn <dan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Gryglicki <lukaszgryglicki@o2.pl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Stop supporting "git merge <message> HEAD <commit>" syntax that has
been deprecated since October 2007, and issues a deprecation
warning message since v2.5.0.
* jc/merge-drop-old-syntax:
merge: drop 'git merge <message> HEAD <commit>' syntax
Teach 'git merge' the --continue option which allows 'continuing' a
merge by completing it. The traditional way of completing a merge after
resolving conflicts is to use 'git commit'. Now with commands like 'git
rebase' and 'git cherry-pick' having a '--continue' option adding such
an option to 'git merge' presents a consistent UI.
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <judge.packham@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The previous commit said:
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do
so and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others,
because such a "two project merge" would be done after fetching
the other project into some location in the working tree of an
existing project and making sure how well they fit together, it
is sufficient to allow a local merge without such an option
pass-through from "git pull" to "git merge".
Prepare a patch to make it a reality, just in case it is needed.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While it makes sense to allow merging unrelated histories of two
projects that started independently into one, in the way "gitk" was
merged to "git" itself aka "the coolest merge ever", such a merge is
still an unusual event. Worse, if somebody creates an independent
history by starting from a tarball of an established project and
sends a pull request to the original project, "git merge" however
happily creates such a merge without any sign of something unusual
is happening.
Teach "git merge" to refuse to create such a merge by default,
unless the user passes a new "--allow-unrelated-histories" option to
tell it that the user is aware that two unrelated projects are
merged.
Because such a "two project merge" is a rare event, a configuration
option to always allow such a merge is not added.
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do so
and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others, because such
a "two project merge" would be done after fetching the other project
into some location in the working tree of an existing project and
making sure how well they fit together, it is sufficient to allow a
local merge without such an option pass-through from "git pull" to
"git merge". Many tests that are updated by this patch does the
pass-through manually by turning:
git pull something
into its equivalent:
git fetch something &&
git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD
If somebody is inclined to add such an option, updated tests in this
change need to be adjusted back to:
git pull --allow-unrelated-histories something
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Very small number of options take a parameter that is optional
(which is not a great UI element as they can only appear at the end
of the command line). Add notice to documentation of each and
every one of them.
* mm/keyid-docs:
Documentation: explain optional arguments better
Documentation/grep: fix documentation of -O
Documentation: use 'keyid' consistently, not 'key-id'
Improve the documentation of commands taking optional arguments in two
ways:
* Documents the behavior of '-O' (for grep) and '-S' (for commands
creating commits) when used without the optional argument.
* Document the syntax of these options.
For the second point, the behavior is documented in gitcli(7), but it is
easy for users to miss, and hard for the same user to understand why e.g.
"git status -u no" does not work.
Document this explicitly in the documentation of each short option having
an optional argument: they are the most error prone since there is no '='
sign between the option and its argument.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The branch descriptions that are set with "git branch --edit-description"
option were used in many places but they weren't clearly documented.
* po/doc-branch-desc:
doc: show usage of branch description
The branch description will be included in 'git format-patch
--cover-letter' and in 'git pull-request' emails. It can also
be used in the automatic merge message. Tell the reader.
While here, clarify that the description may be a multi-line
explanation of the purpose of the branch's patch series.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git merge FETCH_HEAD" learned that the previous "git fetch" could
be to create an Octopus merge, i.e. recording multiple branches
that are not marked as "not-for-merge"; this allows us to lose an
old style invocation "git merge <msg> HEAD $commits..." in the
implementation of "git pull" script; the old style syntax can now
be deprecated.
* jc/merge:
merge: deprecate 'git merge <message> HEAD <commit>' syntax
merge: handle FETCH_HEAD internally
merge: decide if we auto-generate the message early in collect_parents()
merge: make collect_parents() auto-generate the merge message
merge: extract prepare_merge_message() logic out
merge: narrow scope of merge_names
merge: split reduce_parents() out of collect_parents()
merge: clarify collect_parents() logic
merge: small leakfix and code simplification
merge: do not check argc to determine number of remote heads
merge: clarify "pulling into void" special case
t5520: test pulling an octopus into an unborn branch
t5520: style fixes
merge: simplify code flow
merge: test the top-level merge driver
And then if we and our users survived the previous "start warning if
the old syntax is used" patch for a few years, we could apply this
to actually drop the support for the ancient syntax.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The collect_parents() function now is responsible for
1. parsing the commits given on the command line into a list of
commits to be merged;
2. filtering these parents into independent ones; and
3. optionally calling fmt_merge_msg() via prepare_merge_message()
to prepare an auto-generated merge log message, using fake
contents that FETCH_HEAD would have had if these commits were
fetched from the current repository with "git pull . $args..."
Make "git merge FETCH_HEAD" to be the same as the traditional
git merge "$(git fmt-merge-msg <.git/FETCH_HEAD)" $commits
invocation of the command in "git pull", where $commits are the ones
that appear in FETCH_HEAD that are not marked as not-for-merge, by
making it do a bit more, specifically:
- noticing "FETCH_HEAD" is the only "commit" on the command line
and picking the commits that are not marked as not-for-merge as
the list of commits to be merged (substitute for step #1 above);
- letting the resulting list fed to step #2 above;
- doing the step #3 above, using the contents of the FETCH_HEAD
instead of fake contents crafted from the list of commits parsed
in the step #1 above.
Note that this changes the semantics. "git merge FETCH_HEAD" has
always behaved as if the first commit in the FETCH_HEAD file were
directly specified on the command line, creating a two-way merge
whose auto-generated merge log said "merge commit xyz". With this
change, if the previous fetch was to grab multiple branches (e.g.
"git fetch $there topic-a topic-b"), the new world order is to
create an octopus, behaving as if "git pull $there topic-a topic-b"
were run. This is a deliberate change to make that happen, and
can be seen in the changes to t3033 tests.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This should improve readability. Compare "thislongname" and
"thisLongName". The following keys are left in unchanged. We can
decide what to do with them later.
- am.keepcr
- core.autocrlf .safecrlf .trustctime
- diff.dirstat .noprefix
- gitcvs.usecrlfattr
- gui.blamehistoryctx .trustmtime
- pull.twohead
- receive.autogc
- sendemail.signedoffbycc .smtpsslcertpath .suppresscc
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There's no point in this:
% git merge
fatal: No commit specified and merge.defaultToUpstream not set.
We know the most likely scenario is that the user wants to merge the
upstream, and if not, he can set merge.defaultToUpstream to false.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"When you need to use space, use dash" is a strange way to say that
you must not use a space. Because it is more common for the command
line descriptions to use dashed-multi-words, you do not even want to
use spaces in these places. Rephrase the documentation to avoid
this strangeness.
Fix a few existing multi-word argument help strings, i.e.
- GPG key-ids given to -S/--gpg-sign are "key-id";
- Refs used for storing notes are "notes-ref"; and
- Expiry timestamps given to --expire are "expiry-date".
and update the corresponding documentation pages.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The option to gpg sign a merge commit is available but was not
documented. Use wording from the git-commit(1) manpage.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mars-attacks.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
You need at least four dashes in a line to have it recognized as listing
block delimiter by asciidoc.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 35d2fffd introduced 'git merge --abort' as a synonym to 'git reset
--merge', and added some failing tests in t7611-merge-abort.sh (search
'###' in this file) showing that 'git merge --abort' could not always
recover the pre-merge state.
Still, in many cases, 'git merge --abort' just works, and it is usually
considered that the ability to start a merge with uncommited changes is
an important property of Git.
Weaken the warning by discouraging only merge with /non-trivial/
uncommited changes.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
White-spaces, missing braces, standardize --[no-]foo.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Document the 1.7.9 feature to merge a signed tag and keep that in
the mergetag header in the resulting commit better.
* yd/doc-merge-annotated-tag:
Documentation: merging a tag is a special case
When asking Git to merge a tag (such as a signed tag or annotated tag),
it will always create a merge commit even if fast-forward was possible.
It's like having --no-ff present on the command line.
It's a difference from the default behavior described in git-merge.txt.
It should be documented as an exception of "FAST-FORWARD MERGE" section
and "--ff" option description.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This change was already done by 0e615b252f (Matthieu Moy, Tue Nov 2
2010, Replace "remote tracking" with "remote-tracking"), but new
instances of remote tracking (without dash) were introduced in the
meantime.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
* jc/merge-sans-branch:
merge: merge with the default upstream branch without argument
merge: match the help text with the documentation
Conflicts:
builtin/merge.c
"git merge" without specifying any commit is a no-op by default.
A new option merge.defaultupstream can be set to true to cause such an
invocation of the command to merge the upstream branches configured for
the current branch by using their last observed values stored in their
remote tracking branches.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
* jh/notes-merge: (23 commits)
Provide 'git merge --abort' as a synonym to 'git reset --merge'
cmd_merge(): Parse options before checking MERGE_HEAD
Provide 'git notes get-ref' to easily retrieve current notes ref
git notes merge: Add testcases for merging notes trees at different fanouts
git notes merge: Add another auto-resolving strategy: "cat_sort_uniq"
git notes merge: --commit should fail if underlying notes ref has moved
git notes merge: List conflicting notes in notes merge commit message
git notes merge: Manual conflict resolution, part 2/2
git notes merge: Manual conflict resolution, part 1/2
Documentation: Preliminary docs on 'git notes merge'
git notes merge: Add automatic conflict resolvers (ours, theirs, union)
git notes merge: Handle real, non-conflicting notes merges
builtin/notes.c: Refactor creation of notes commits.
git notes merge: Initial implementation handling trivial merges only
builtin/notes.c: Split notes ref DWIMmery into a separate function
notes.c: Use two newlines (instead of one) when concatenating notes
(trivial) t3303: Indent with tabs instead of spaces for consistency
notes.h/c: Propagate combine_notes_fn return value to add_note() and beyond
notes.h/c: Allow combine_notes functions to remove notes
notes.c: Reorder functions in preparation for next commit
...
Conflicts:
builtin.h
Teach 'git merge' the --abort option, which verifies the existence of
MERGE_HEAD and then invokes 'git reset --merge' to abort the current
in-progress merge and attempt to reconstruct the pre-merge state.
The reason for adding this option is to provide a user interface for
aborting an in-progress merge that is consistent with the interface
for aborting a rebase ('git rebase --abort'), aborting the application
of a patch series ('git am --abort'), and aborting an in-progress notes
merge ('git notes merge --abort').
The patch includes documentation and testcases that explain and verify
the various scenarios in which 'git merge --abort' can run. The
testcases also document the cases in which 'git merge --abort' is
unable to correctly restore the pre-merge state (look for the '###'
comments towards the bottom of t/t7609-merge-abort.sh).
This patch has been improved by the following contributions:
- Jonathan Nieder: Move test documentation into test_description
Thanks-to: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Inside an element of an enumerated list, the second and subsequent
paragraphs need to lose their indent and have to be strung together with a
line with a single '+' on it instead. Otherwise the lines below are shown
in typewriter face, which just looks wrong.
Signed-off-by: Nathan W. Panike <nathan.panike@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the user specifies a message, use fmt_merge_msg_shortlog() to
append the shortlog.
Previously, when a message was specified, we ignored the merge title
("Merge <foo> into <bar>") and shortlog from fmt_merge_msg().
Update the documentation for -m to reflect this too.
Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
