Re: [PATCH 9/9] revert: simplify communicating command-line arguments
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 9, 2011, 19:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20111209190236.GA20913@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1323445326-24637-10-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>
Hey,
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
[...]
Show 10 quoted lines
> Future callers as other commands are built in (am, rebase, sequencer) > may find it easier to pass rev-list options to this machinery in > already-parsed form. So, teach cmd_cherry_pick and cmd_revert to > parse the rev-list arguments in advance and pass the commit set to > pick_revisions() as a "struct rev_info". > > Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This sign-off chain suggests that the life of the patch happened in three stages:
- first, you wrote the patch or some component of it and passed it to me. - then, I accepted it, tweaked it so much that I felt the need to claim authorship and save you from blame (hence the "From:" field), and passed it on to Junio. - finally, Junio applied it to some tree.
and that you are sending out a copy of the patch Junio applied for additional comments.
But in fact, this started with a patch from me (I don't rememember whether it was signed off, but that doesn't matter --- I happily retroactively sign off on it) and now you are sending it to the list and Junio for comments. So I would think it should simply say
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
and Junio can add his sign-off below that when applying some version to his tree. Bonus points if you mention what tweaks you made when you are not just passing it on.
[...]
Show 16 quoted lines
> --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh > +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh > @@ -414,4 +414,15 @@ test_expect_success 'mixed pick and revert instructions' ' > test_cmp expect actual > ' > > +test_expect_success 'empty commit set' ' > + pristine_detach initial && > + test_expect_code 128 git cherry-pick base..base > +' > + > +test_expect_success 'commit set passed through --all' ' > + pristine_detach initial && > + test_expect_code 1 git cherry-pick --all && > + git cherry-pick --continue > +'
What does this test mean? "git cherry-pick --all" should report a spurious conflict, and then --continue will clean it up automagically and all will be well?