Re: BUG: "cherry-pick A..B || git reset --hard OTHER"

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 7, 2016, 23:21 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8AP-N4BDyaXszvbh2k8fr7jO+YhVj=_0o0x1ooWrqkR4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d32c645-e850-5e7c-b01c-6e4d81e2d672@gmx.net>

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On 12/07/2016 09:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> writes:
>>
>>> [1] By the way: git cherry-pick --quit, git rebase --forget ...
>>> different wording for the same thing makes things unintuitive.
>>
>> It is not too late to STOP "--forget" from getting added to "rebase"
>> and give it a better name.

Sorry I didn't know about --quit (and it has been there since 2011, I guess I'm just not big sequencer user).

> Oh. ;) I am not sure. I personally think that --forget is a better name

Yeah, I was stuck with the name --destroy for many months and was very happy the day I found --forget, which does not imply any destructive side effects and is distinct enough from --abort to not confuse people.

Show 5 quoted lines

> than --quit because when I hear --quit I tend to look into the manual
> page first to check if there are weird side effects (and then the manual
> page says that it "forgets" ;D).
> So I'd rather favor adding --forget to cherry-pick/revert instead... or
> this:

-- 
Duy