From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:29:57 GMT Subject: Re: Cherry-pick dangles and forgets helpful advice in next Message-ID: <7vy5o86yy2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4FC6AFE3.5070805@cisco.com> Phil Hord writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Instead of reverting the entire thing, perhaps we can fix the >> regression like this. >> >> With this, we no longer unconditionally give "--allow-empty" when we >> run "git commit", when --allow-empty (which is only about commits >> that are originally empty) is given to cherry-pick; specifically, >> when the user did not ask for --keep-redundant-commit, we do not >> give "--allow-empty" if the original commit is not. >> >> Thinking about it again, I _think_ we do not even have to check if >> the result is an empty commit ourselves ("git commit" will do that >> for us anyway), so we might want to rip "is_empty_commit()" out of >> the problematic patch and keep only "is_index_unmodified()" bit, but >> for now I think this may be good enough. >> >> Phil, does it fix your issue? > > Yes, it appears to fix my issue. I don't have the original condition in > play anymore, but it fixes the test case I cooked up earlier. OK, I'm planning to merge the fix down before 1.7.11 final. It may have broken the use case Neil wanted to support as a side effect (I tried to be careful but I did not do anything beyond the test cases as I do not deliberately add empty commits to my history); Neil may want to double check the result. Thanks.