As we already walk the history of the branch that gets merged to
come up with a short log, let's label it with names of the primary
authors, so that the user who summarizes the merge can easily give
credit to them in the log message.
Also infer the names of "lieutents" to help integrators at higher
level of the food-chain to give credit to them, by counting:
* The committer of the 'tip' commit that is merged
* The committer of merge commits that are merged
Often the first one gives the owner of the history being pulled, but
his last pull from his sublieutenants may have been a fast-forward,
in which case the first one would not be. The latter rule will
count the integrator of the history, so together it might be a
reasonable heuristics.
There are two special cases:
- The "author" credit is omitted when the series is written solely
by the same author who is making the merge. The name can be seen
on the "Author" line of the "git log" output to view the log
message anyway.
- The "lieutenant" credit is omitted when there is only one key
committer in the merged branch and it is the committer who is
making the merge. Typically this applies to the case where the
developer merges his own branch.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
418a1435f1