Show 40 quoted lines
> 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.
Which would have been obvious to all but the most casual readers, eh?
We've been over this already:
The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
. explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what is wrong
with the current code without the change. . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why the
result with the change is better. . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.
I'll gladly review your patches again once you have done that.
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>