From: Julia Evans <julia@jvns.ca>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2026 20:12:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] doc: git-cherry-pick: link to new merge conflicts guide
Message-ID: <c206ae13-a815-41fe-9cf9-95445b4f98e7@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqse2epw6x.fsf@gitster.g>



On Fri, Oct 9, 2026, at 2:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> -When it is not obvious how to apply a change, the following
>> -happens:
>> +When it is not obvious how to apply a change, there may
>> +be a merge conflict. See linkgit:gitmergeconflicts[7]
>> +(or `git help mergeconflicts`) for a guide to handling merge conflicts.
>
> "Obvious to whom" was the first thing that came to my mind, even
> though the blame largely lies on the original.  Can't we get rid of
> the above pragraph altogether, and "See new one" at the end where
> you replaced "See git-merge" reference below?

Sounds good to me. Same for the language around revert.

>> +When a merge conflict happens:
>>  
>>  1. The current branch and `HEAD` pointer stay at the last commit
>>     successfully made.
>> @@ -36,9 +39,6 @@ happens:
>>     conflict markers `<<<<<<<` and `>>>>>>>`.
>>  5. No other modifications are made.
>>  
>> -See linkgit:git-merge[1] for some hints on resolving such
>> -conflicts.
>> -
>>  OPTIONS
>>  -------
>>  <commit>...::
>> @@ -259,6 +259,7 @@ $ git cherry-pick -Xpatience topic^  <4>
>>  SEE ALSO
>>  --------
>>  linkgit:git-revert[1]
>> +linkgit:gitmergeconflicts[7]
>>  
>>  GIT
>>  ---