Re: [PATCH 1/2] Introduce CHERRY_PICK_HEAD
- From
Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 16, 2011, 16:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTike1Xf6+NNs0QJuzLibN8VyHVOTjQuX=zd_mqCe@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTim8m4uBjn_FJ-SWnARkv8rTiM1SrBTBFeg2R_hd@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> wrote: >> When a cherry-pick conflicts git advises to use: >> >> $ git commit -c <original commit id> >> >> to preserve the original commit message and authorship. Instead, let's >> record the original commit id in CHERRY_PICK_HEAD and advise to use: >> >> $ git commit -c CHERRY_PICK_HEAD > > Wouldn't it be more convenient to do "git cherry-pick --continue" > instead of "git commit -c CHERRY_PICK_HEAD"?
As mentioned in the part of the commit message you trimmed away: "In the next commit, we teach git to handle the '-c CHERRY_PICK_HEAD' part". Now, you may ask, why use "git commit" after resolving the conflict (a la merge) instead of "git cherry-pick --continue" (a la rebase).
I addressed this in the previous thread, see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/166884
j.