Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] CHERRY_HEAD
- From
Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2011, 22:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTin-9g9Ux=_oKBMuB+Yp-bOtBCTjqMWU7ENctXdM@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vk4h1lzjj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> 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.
j.