Re: [PATCH] docs: Clarify what git-rebase's "--preserve-merges" does
- From
Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 2, 2015, 09:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87619ezwio.fsf@javad.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqpp7nn5l3.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Sergey Organov <s.organov@javad.com> writes: > >> Nope. It seems like cherry-pick takes care of that: >> ... >> What do I miss? > > The fact that cherry-pick did not flag it as a potential conflict > situation where a manual verification is required > (the cherry-pick process can be fooled by textual similarity and > either add the same thing twice or fail to add one thing that is > needed).
Well, it was not required in the simple case I tested, and cherry-pick did the right thing. I suspect it will do the right thing (flag a conflict) where manual verification is required. A test-case demonstrating the problem you have in mind, maybe?
Anyway, how is it different to cherry-pick merge commit compared to any other commit? I mean, provided we cherry-pick other commits, we already accepted all the possible negative consequences of cherry-picking. How cherry-picking merge commits make this worse?
I.e., do you think we have a show-stopper, or just that there are ways to handle merge commits event better than simple "cherry-pick -m1"? The latter is probably true, but simple cherry-pick still looks much better than what we have now, no?
-- Sergey.