From: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>,
Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cc/cherry-pick-ff (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2010, #04; Tue, 16))
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:03:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201003220403.54770.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v1vffqdm4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Saturday 20 March 2010 15:20:03 Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> > ... if we implement "git cherry-pick A..B", and if many people
> > start to use it, then perhaps it will make sense for --ff to become the
> > default.
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> Think why you are saying A..B, with an explicit "A".
>
> It is because you know it is different from HEAD; otherwise you would have
> done "git merge B"---slurp all changes between HEAD..B, which would be
> equivalent to "cherry-pick --ff HEAD..B".
I think that some people might avoid "git merge" altogether just because they
may not be confident with merges and prefer linear histories.
They may also prefer "git cherry-pick A..B" over "git rebase" or "git rebase -
i" because it may be simpler for them to understand.
> As an ingredient for use of scripts that do not want to check (even if
> they could) if it is dealing with a corner case in which the commit a
> change is being applied to happens to be the commit the change in question
> is based on, being able to say --ff would make sense (as your patch series
> showed, it helped to lose several lines from the rebase-i implementation).
> The end user may not bother to count commits, and being able to ff earlier
> parts of "rebase -i HEAD~20" when the first "edit" appears after many
> "pick" would help (and that was why "rebase -i" internally had ff logic).
>
> But running cherry-pick as the top-level operation is a conscious act of
> "I want to replay the change done by that one", and it would be utterly
> confusing if it fast-forwarded by default. I agree with Jonathan that it
> will never be default.
Well, I think it is difficult to predict how and how much people will use "git
cherry-pick A..B", and if after using it they will want fast forwarding by
default to be consistent between "git cherry-pick" and "git merge" or if they
won't care.
Best regards,
Christian.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-22 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-17 6:37 What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2010, #04; Tue, 16) Junio C Hamano
2010-03-17 9:52 ` cc/cherry-pick-ff (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2010, #04; Tue, 16)) Jonathan Nieder
2010-03-17 17:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-03-18 0:38 ` Christian Couder
2010-03-18 7:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2010-03-20 14:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-03-20 22:09 ` cc/cherry-pick-ff Jonathan Nieder
2010-03-22 3:03 ` Christian Couder [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201003220403.54770.chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--to=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=bonzini@gnu.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=marcnarc@xiplink.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).