Re: [PATCH] git-pull.sh: Fix call to git-merge for new command format

"Horst H. von Brand" [off-list ref] writes:

Heh, embarrasing.

But I think you wanted to have -m immediately before "$merge_name", no?

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.12.2009 00:54:

"Horst H. von Brand" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Horst H. von Brand <redacted>
---
 git-pull.sh |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
index bfeb4a0..a875809 100755
--- a/git-pull.sh
+++ b/git-pull.sh

@@ -218,5 +218,5 @@ merge_name=$(git fmt-merge-msg $log_arg <"$GIT_DIR/FETCH_HEAD") || exit
 test true = "$rebase" &&
 	exec git-rebase $diffstat $strategy_args --onto $merge_head \
 	${oldremoteref:-$merge_head}
-exec git-merge $diffstat $no_commit $squash $no_ff $ff_only $log_arg $strategy_args \
-	"$merge_name" HEAD $merge_head $verbosity
+exec git-merge  $verbosity -m $diffstat $no_commit $squash $no_ff $ff_only $log_arg $strategy_args \
+	"$merge_name" $merge_head

-- 
1.6.6.rc0.114.gc8648

Heh, embarrasing.

But I think you wanted to have -m immediately before "$merge_name", no?

This made me wonder a bit: Do we have a policy regarding the use of
"git-command" vs. "git command" in git shell scripts such as this one?
Of course, having been called through git, the dashed versions are in
the PATH. But I see a mix here ("git fmt-merge-msg" vs. "git-merge") and
in other scripts, which may potentially (in broken setups) lead to parts
of git from different installs being called. I would think the dashed
form is even more efficient (fewer lookups)?

Michael