Re: [RFC PATCH v2] revert: Implement --abort processing
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 12, 2011, 12:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <BANLkTi=T0wCg1bKzmtQEQ-J-5ogqRZaqRg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110611112213.GA25268@elie>
Hi Jonathan,
Jonathan Nieder writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> The documentation could say: > > To wipe out everything and get back to where you started, use: > > git reset --hard PRE_CHERRY_PICK_HEAD
My notion of --abort has changed: I simply want to remove the state files for the cherry-pick so that the user can execute more cherry-pick/ revert commands. I didn't think a soft reset would be intrusive. Hm, you're suggesting using a ref -- I was wondering what to do with CHERY_PICK_HEAD. I'm not entirely convinced, but I'll wait for the others to comment and think about this for some time.
Show 19 quoted lines
> What if instead of --abort something else were simpler to think about? > As a random example, I can imagine a "git sequencer --edit" command > that would present the sequence in an editor and let me revise the > plan --- would that do the trick? > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > * YOU ARE HERE > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > > - Remove lines 5-8: removes sequencer state, leaves HEAD as is > - Remove everything: rewinds to abort sequence > - Add a line 2.5 between 2 and 3: rewind to 2, cherry-pick 2.5, > continue.
Interesting perspective. I essentially have to keep two TODO files and run a diff until I find the first different line. Then, I have to reset to that SHA-1 and replay the rest of the user-edited TODO. Can be complicated to get right, but it seems like quite an elegant interactive solution. It takes care of all three: --abort and --skip. We'd still need a --continue to non-interactively continue after a conflict resolution though, no?
Show 5 quoted lines
> Which is to say: if you have a story about what --abort will be used > for, the life of others evaluating the thing becomes better and the > upsides and downsides can be seen in perspective. A story like "am > and rebase have --abort, so cherry-pick should have one, too" is > harder to think about.
I agree. There's little point in being stuck with historical conventions -- we should try something new and see how it works out :)
Thanks.
-- Ram