Merge commit message

[markjerz]

When merging one branch in to another can we have the ability to edit the commit message?

[DanPristupov]

1. Use case?
2. How would this feature look in UI?

[markjerz]

Something like the above.

It's the default behaviour in git to open the editor when you do a merge and that merge can be done automatically without conflicts. See https://git-blame.blogspot.com/2012/02/anticipating-git-1710.html for some commentary.

I'd not really been bothered until I just merged in to our production branch and realised that it's not immediately obvious what was contained in the commit as it just says "Merge branch X". If I could quickly edit that message to say something meaningful (e.g. "Released X, Y, Z") that would be a good thing!

Thanks.

[Lars-Malmgren]

+1

[felixhirt]

Having editable merge commit messages would be awesome. On top of that, it would also be nice if the commit description part would be a list of all merged commits by default, similar to what e.g. bitbucket does on pullrequest squash merges. The use case would be to make my bosses life easier when he writes release notes

[lorenzo-arena]

Another option would be to create a new checkbox to "merge without creating a new commit", like when using the git merge --no-commit command from the terminal. I find myself using this a lot of times to review the changes before committing the merge.

[mloskot]

AFAIU, OP's is requesting to add equivalent to git merge --edit, that's it.

[lorenzo-arena]

@DanPristupov should I open a new issue? I was saying that because --no-commit would also enable you to modify the commit message, just as doing a normal commit

[DanPristupov]

I think in this particular use case both --edit and --no-commit describe the same behavior and we should proceed here.

@lorenzo-arena Technically "merge without creating a new commit" checkbox would work, however there are design issues:

• having three checkboxes in a row

• all three checkboxes are exceptional

• (1) Always create a merge commit --no-ff.

• (2) Squash merge --squash (implies (1) = true and (3) = true)

• (3) Merge without commit --no-commit (implies (1) = true)

Reminds me of (https://aproximatelytoomanygames.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pipe-puzzle.jpg).

The merge dialog UI should not have such a puzzle-game. Not sure how this can be fixed.

[mloskot]

Shouldn't the three options be just modeled after the GitHub feature?

[DanPristupov]

What will be the default option, when all three are off (i.e. when ff is possible)?

[mloskot]

I'd follow GitHub as a well-known convention, so GitHub's default that is the true merge

When you click the default Merge pull request option on a pull request on GitHub,
all commits from the feature branch are added to the base branch in a merge commit.

from https://help.github.com/en/github/administering-a-repository/about-merge-methods-on-github

[DanPristupov]

@mloskot so, is the proposal to remove the fast-forward option?

[mloskot]

@DanPristupov I may be wrong, but my understanding is that GitHub's Rebase and merge is effectively fast-forward merge, with result that is equivalent.

[DanPristupov]

No, it's the opposite. It's no fast forward (--no-ff, always create a merge commit).

[DanPristupov]

In, Fork 1.42 we introduced the option to merge without commit, which allows to edit the merge commit message: