From: Bert Wesarg Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:02:27 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] Introduce CHERRY_HEAD Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v4o84nbuh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 23:59, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >> I wonder if cherry-pick shouldn't also write MERGE_MSG or similar so >> that gets taken care of automatically?  That would also allow options >> like -x and -m to work better. > > Hm, that probably is a good idea. > >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt b/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt >> index 749d68a..e8db99b 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt >> @@ -16,6 +16,25 @@ Given one or more existing commits, apply the change each one >>  introduces, recording a new commit for each.  This requires your >>  working tree to be clean (no modifications from the HEAD commit). >> >> +When it is not obvious how to apply a change, the following >> +happens: >> + >> +1. The current branch and `HEAD` pointer stay at the last commit >> +   successfully made. >> +2. The `CHERRY_HEAD` ref is set to point at the commit that >> +   introduced the change that is difficult to apply. >> +3. Paths in which the change applied cleanly are updated both >> +   in the index file and in your working tree. >> +4. For conflicting paths, the index file records up to three >> +   versions, as described in the "TRUE MERGE" section of >> +   linkgit:git-merge[1].  The working tree files will include >> +   a description of the conflict bracketed by the usual >> +   conflict markers `<<<<<<<` and `>>>>>>>`. > > What happened to the `=======`?  I thought you were copying and pasting > from the said section. I think this is clear enough, else you would need to mention the '|||||||' and conflict_marker_size too. Bert