From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git cherry-pick --continue? Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:04:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20100211210445.GA8819@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100210210419.GA7728@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20100210212408.GB7728@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v63644uoq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vbpfw3f6t.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vpr4c200i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , Git List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 11 22:04:52 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfgDT-0003r2-NS for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:04:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757053Ab0BKVEq (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:04:46 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:51808 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756799Ab0BKVEp (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:04:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 21974 invoked by uid 107); 11 Feb 2010 21:04:51 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:04:51 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:04:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vpr4c200i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:34:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Changing the insn to suggest using "-C topic" when the original command > line was "git cherry-pick topic" would be a good addition, too. Currently > we suggest "-c" and abbreviated object name, neither of which is sensible. I think using the actual name instead of the abbreviated sha1 is sensible. But I think "-c" makes sense, as it gives the user the chance to look over the commit message to see if they need to tweak it to match the conflict fixups. Savvy users who don't want to do that will know to use "-C". Series to follow: [1/4]: cherry-pick: rewrap advice message [2/4]: cherry-pick: refactor commit parsing code [3/4]: cherry-pick: format help message as strbuf [4/4]: cherry-pick: show commit name instead of sha1 -Peff