From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:07:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Unexpected cherry-pick behaviour
Message-ID: <3FFF08967D2E480FA6B0E0EE3A72A8D9@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <CALWbr2y1YDX0dzjpZoF8WL4+ND+8drurH+Wrf1wBs_-=0datOA@mail.gmail.com>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Antoine Pelisse" <apelisse@gmail.com>
<snip>
>
> You can also have a look at what is currently being applied:
>
>    $ git diff :1:gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c 
> :3:gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c
>
> By the way, does anybody know a better way to do that ? I happen to do
> that quite a lot when fixing complex conflicts and the command is
> quite inconvenient (I always end-up forgetting which numbers to use,
> etc..).

Would this be a good use of the
    * Magic pathspecs like ":(icase)
that was recently released (v1.8.5  2Dec13)  so that the merge stages 
can be named.

I'm not sure that the three 'merge stages' have well defined short names 
yet though.

[1] 
http://schacon.github.io/gitbook/5_advanced_branching_and_merging.html
[2] https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-merge.html see 
True Merge 4.

Aside: the 'merge stages' terminology does overlap the common user 
discussion of commit staging e.g. $gmane/236127 (Officially start moving 
to the term 'staging area'). Any pathspec magic names should reflect the 
concept being indicated rather than the implementation - a thorny 
problem.

>
> Hope that helps,
> Antoine
> --

Philip