Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes:
> +With --no-commit perform the merge and stop just before creating
> +a merge commit, to give the user a chance to inspect and further
> +tweak the merge result before committing.
> ++
> +Note that fast-forward updates do not need to create a merge
> +commit and therefore there is no way to stop those merges with
> +--no-commit. Thus, if you want to ensure your branch is not
> +changed or updated by the merge command, use --no-ff with
> +--no-commit.
While the above is an improvement (so I'll queue it on 'pu' not to
lose sight of it), I find the use of "do not need to" above somewhat
misleading. It solicits a reaction "ok, we know it does not need
to, but it could prepare to create one to allow us to further muck
with it, no?".
IOW, a fast-forward by definition does not create a merge by itself,
so there is nowhere to stop during a creation of a merge. So at
least:
s/do not need to/do not/
It also may be a good idea to consider detecting this case and be a
bit more helpful, perhaps with end-user experience looking like...
$ git checkout master^0
$ git merge --no-commit next
Updating 0d0ac3826a..ee538a81fe
Fast-forward
...diffstat follows here...
hint: merge completed without creating a commit.
hint: if you wanted to prepare for a manually tweaked merge,
hint: do "git reset --keep ORIG_HEAD" followed by
hint: "git merge --no-ff --no-commit next".
or even
$ git checkout master^0
$ git merge --no-commit next
warning: defaulting to --no-ff, given a --no-commit request
Automatic merge went well; stopped before committing as requested
hint: if you'd rather have a fast-forward without creating a commit,
hint: do "git reset --keep next" now.
I do not have a strong preference among three (the third option
being not doing anything), but if pressed, I'd say that the last one
might be the most user-friendly, even though it feels a bit too
magical and trying to be smarter than its own good.
In any case, the hint for the "recovery" procedure needs to be
carefully written.
