Re: git cherry-pick --strategy=resolve segfaults if picking a root commit
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- May 16, 2011, 10:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110516102744.GA23286@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110512110855.GA5240@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:08:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:45:58AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > So probably we should: > > > > 1. Pass the empty tree along to merge-resolve. This will take a little > > bit of refactoring, but more importantly, it means we will be > > passing a tree-ish and not a commit-ish to a merge strategy. Is > > that OK? > > > > 2. Consider lifting the restriction on reverting root commits. If we > > can cherry-pick it, we can revert it, so I suspect this would > > already work with merge-recursive, but I didn't try. I don't care > > too much either way, though; I doubt it's something people would do > > a lot. It just seems like an unnecessary restriction. > > This turned out to be quite easy. git-merge-resolve handles the tree-ish > argument just fine. But it's possible other merge helpers might not be > so happy. I dunno. > > The series is: > > [1/3]: cherry-pick: handle root commits with external strategies > [2/3]: revert: allow reverting a root commit > [3/3]: t3503: test cherry picking and reverting root commits
Junio,
I seem to recall seeing an email from you saying that merge-helpers need to handle tree-ish arguments, so this is an OK direction to go. But now I can't seem to find it. Did I dream it?
If that is the case, then I think this series is worth picking up. So I thought I'd prod you on it (I'm happy to repost, too, if that's easier).
-Peff