From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:47:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH 3/3] cherry-pick/revert: update hints
Message-ID: <81dbc317-c11f-c3b4-f20f-cff20254d626@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190610133321.7901-1-rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com>

Hi Rohit

On 10/06/2019 14:33, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
> Hi Phillip
> 
> On 2019-06-10 10:40 UTC Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rohit
>>
>> On 10/06/2019 06:28, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
>>> Hey Phillip
>>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:03:02 +0100 Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rohit
>>> [...]
>>> I think it is more about suggesting what are all the possibilities
>>> you can try and not about intelligently suggesting what you should
>>> do.
>>
>> Previously all the suggested options were viable, --skip is not
>> applicable if the user has committed a conflict resolution. The idea of
>> the advice is to help the user, suggesting options that wont work is not
>> going to help them.
> 
> Now that I know what I should do, I'll make the change and submit a
> better patch.


That's great, thanks

Phillip

>>> ofc, we can not use `revert --<option>` while cherry-picking.(
>>
>> As I suggested in patch 1 we should tailor the error message to the command.
> 
> Yes, I'll tailor the messages based on which command was ran.
> 
>>> we should not be able to do so in ideal conditions, but the world
>>> does not work as we think it should). Still we are suggesting so
>>> here.
>>
>> Yes because you have the power to easily make that change. It is normal
>> to try and improve the code base when we make related changes.
> 
> :)
> 
>>> Also, I think it is more reasonable to make "this" a part of patch
>>> which will cover "tailored" advice messages which is also a topic
>>> of discussion as I described here[1].
>>
>> That might make sense, but it is a pretty self contained change as part
>> of this patch.
> 
> Yes, this patch is the place where all changes should be made.
> 
> Thanks
> Rohit
>