From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 02:46:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cherry-pick: add support to copy notes
Message-ID: <51a56bef1b9c2_807b33e1899991@nysa.mail>
In-Reply-To: <87mwrfx9ug.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>

Thomas Rast wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Thomas Rast Cc'ed as he has been the primary force behind this line
> > of "notes" usability.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out to me.
> 
> > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  builtin/revert.c  |   2 +
> >>  sequencer.c       | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>  sequencer.h       |   2 +
> >>  t/t3500-cherry.sh |  32 +++++++++++++
> >>  4 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > "git cherry-pick" should help maintaining notes just like amend and
> > rebase, but how should this interact with notes.rewrite.<command>,
> > where the command is capable of doing this without an explicit
> > option once you tell which notes need to be maintained?
> 
> Since we already have the notes.rewrite.<command> convention, it would
> seem the obvious choice to line it up with the others.  The main
> bikeshedding opportunity is whether this should be an exception and
> default to false (all other commands default it to true).
> 
> Also: how does this interact with notes.rewriteRef and the corresponding
> env vars?  Why?
> 
> How does it interact with 'cherry-pick -n' if this is done in sequence,
> effectively squashing several commits (this use-case is actually
> suggested by the manpage), if multiple source commits had notes?  Should
> it respect notes.rewriteMode (and by default concatenate)?  (I don't
> know if the sequencer state is expressive enough already to carry this
> in a meaningful way across cherry-pick commands.)

Feel free to implement that. I'm just interested in 'git cherry-pick' being
usable for 'git rebase' purposes.

-- 
Felipe Contreras