Conversation
|
Yeah, I worry about having these two overloads. Because what happens when you want to octopus merge two commits and a ref? (Well, this is entirely theoretical, since libgit2 doesn't even do octopus merging, but you know.) I wonder if |
|
You can peel the |
Sure - I guess my thinking here is twofold: first, it would be nice if we didn't make users do the peeling. :) And second, And it would definitely be nice to get rid of these overloads and have a single |
|
Sure, we can accept a |
|
Updated with more interfaces, yay. The CI error seems to come from us assuming interfaces are only ever there for mocking, which seems like a bad idea. |
This allows us to ask the library about what kind of actions are available for merging into HEAD.
These are what we really use for merges and rebases, so expose them so we can accept these instead of having multiple variations for the user to guess.
Instead of the multiple overloads, accept IAnnotatedCommit so the user can provide commits or references.
4e99f6d to
0b61819
Compare
This allows us to ask the library about what kind of actions
are available for merging into HEAD.
I'm still not quite sure what the overloads should be. Maybe leave as-is and think about exposing annotated commits as a type.