Re: [PATCH] merge: default to @{upstream}
From: Drew Northup <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:50:28
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 18:17 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
So 'git merge' is 'git merge @{upstream}' instead of 'git merge -h'; it's better to do something useful. Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted> --- builtin/merge.c | 8 +++++--- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c index 42fff38..f23d669 100644 --- a/builtin/merge.c +++ b/builtin/merge.c@@ -983,9 +983,11 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) if (!allow_fast_forward && fast_forward_only) die("You cannot combine --no-ff with --ff-only."); - if (!argc) - usage_with_options(builtin_merge_usage, - builtin_merge_options); + if (!argc) { + /* argv[argc] should be NULL, so we can hijack it */ + argv[0] = "@{u}"; + argc = 1; + } /* * This could be traditional "merge <msg> HEAD <commit>..." and
Honestly, I'd prefer that this NOT be merged in. When I mess up the command line I am typing I don't want some sort of hidden magic to kick in--I want it to tell me that I did something stupid by printing out the help message. This is standard to a large number of commands that by default expect a certain number of operands and I don't see any good reason why git merge should be any different. -- -Drew Northup ________________________________________________ "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59