Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] status: mention --skip for revert and cherry-pick

From: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2019, 23:18 UTC
Message-ID: <20190827231827.GA26899@archbookpro.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqef162rx2.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:56:57PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > When reverting or cherry-picking, one of the options we can pass the
> > sequencer is `--skip`. However, unlike rebasing, `--skip` is not
> > mentioned as a possible option in the status message. Mention it so that
> > users are more aware of their options.
> 
> Is this a good thing, though?
> 
> Giving up (because you do not have enough time or concentration to
> finish the cherry-pick or revert in progress) with --abort, and
> committing to the resolution after spending effort to deal with a
> conflicted cherry-pick or revert with --continue, are both sensible
> actions after seeing the command stop due to conflicts.  Is "--skip"
> a recommendable action in the same way?  Doesn't a multi-commit
> series often break if you drop just one in the middle, especially
> if the series is sensibly structured as a logical progression?

I think that the same argument for or against recommending `--skip` could be made for rebases as well. However, in the rebase case, `--skip` is recommended whenever `--abort` is recommended. With this patch, I made it so that revert and cherry-pick would have `--skip` and `--abort` paired as well.

I'm pretty impartial about making this change but I would suggest if we choose not to pursue this then we should also drop the `--skip` recommendation from rebase as well.