From: Michael J Gruber Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:50:47 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] sequencer: preserve commit messages Message-ID: <54ED9AF7.6080908@drmicha.warpmail.net> In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 24.02.2015 19:29: > Michael J Gruber writes: > >>> Hmm, wouldn't it introduce a grave regression for users who >>> explicitly ask to clean crufty messages up (by setting their own >>> commit.cleanup configuration) if you unconditionally force >>> "--cleanup=verbatim" here? >>> >> >> That's what I meant by possible side-effects below. >> ... >> But git cherry-pick without conflict should no re-cleanup the commit >> message either, should it? > > Hmm, but if it does not, wouldn't that countermand the wish of the > user who explicitly asked to clean crufty messages up by setting > their own commit.cleanup configuration? > Note that "verbatim" is not the default - we cleanup commits even without being asked to. And this makes sense for "git commit", of course. I myself certainly expected "git cherry-pick" to transfer a commit as verbatim as possible. "git rebase" preserves the commit message (at least more than cherry-pick). What's the difference between them? Technically the difference between commit-tree and commit, sure, but for the user? Michael