Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] CHERRY_HEAD

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2011, 22:30 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+mdE0wcahNmWWwOD5dZHfmeox=g9rX3h-rk28@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-9g9Ux=_oKBMuB+Yp-bOtBCTjqMWU7ENctXdM@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 23:13, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I've read this over, haven't run it, but I really like the idea. It
>>> sucks that you have to save away the commit sha1 somwhere after a
>>> failed cherry-pick to use it again. It should just behave like `git
>>> rebase --continue`, which this implements.
>>
>> I don't understand.  What do you think rebase does to be able to continue?
>> Doesn't it have to save the commit object name away somewhere?
>
> I took it to mean that the behavior after a conflict should be 'add'
> followed by 'cherry-pick --continue', not 'add' followed by 'commit'.
> Not that I disagree, but that's a lot more work, see my reply to Ævar
> just before this.

I just meant that when git-rebase conflicts it remembers the author information when you do --continue without you having to do `git commit -c sha1-that-failed` or something.

This patch adds a similar thing to cherry-pick, which I like. It's a minor UI issue that's annoyed me in the past.