Re: [PATCH 10/17] sequencer: Announce sequencer state location

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> I don't think we should advertise it on stdout or stderr.  I think of
> a safeguard that only very few people will use.  Ofcourse, documenting
> it somewhere like Documentation/technical will make sense once we have
> something usable.

Yuck.  Documentation/technical is for API, protocol, and design
documentation.  One should not need to read Documentation/technical in
order to be able to use git!

If the worry is that such a hint would be too noisy, it can be
protected by a configuration variable using the usual advice
mechanism.

>> If I were doing it, I'd squash this with the patch that introduces
>> "git cherry-pick --quit", to give an example of how the new function is
>> meant to be used (and tests!).
>
> I would have done that too, except that the "reset: Make hard reset
> remove the sequencer state" patch depends on this.  So, I don't think
> it's fair to squash it into either patch.
> I can definitely write a better commit message though (wait for the
> next iteration to see it).

Would it be possible to introduce "cherry-pick --quit" here, and make
the later patch only do one thing, namely adding the check to prevent
a cherry-pick in the middle of a pending cherry-pick?

In other words, I don't understand why the "reset --hard" workaround
would need to come before "cherry-pick --quit".

Thanks for explaining.
Jonathan