Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/4] revert: allow cherry-picking a range of commits

[Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>]

On Saturday 29 May 2010 17:47:10 Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Dscho,

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 29 May 2010, Christian Couder wrote:
> > diff --git a/builtin/revert.c b/builtin/revert.c
> > index 70372dc..c281a80 100644
> > --- a/builtin/revert.c
> > +++ b/builtin/revert.c
> > @@ -545,6 +542,40 @@ static int revert_or_cherry_pick(int argc, const
> > char **argv) if (read_cache() < 0)
> >  		die("git %s: failed to read the index", me);
> >
> > +	dotdot = strstr(commit_name, "..");
> > +	if (dotdot) {
> > +		struct rev_info revs;
> > +		const char *argv[4];
> > +		int argc = 0;
> > +
> > +		argv[argc++] = NULL;
> > +		if (action != REVERT)
> > +			argv[argc++] = "--reverse";
> > +		argv[argc++] = commit_name;
> > +		argv[argc++] = NULL;
> 
> Maybe "--no-merges"?

I will have a look at it. Thanks!
 
> > +		init_revisions(&revs, NULL);
> > +		setup_revisions(argc - 1, argv, &revs, NULL);
> > +		if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
> > +			die("revision walk setup failed");
> > +
> > +		if (!revs.commits)
> > +			die("empty range passed");
> > +
> > +		while ( (commit = get_revision(&revs)) ) {
> 
> The style more in linet with the rest of the source code would be:
> 
> 		while ((commit = get_revision(&revs))) {

Ok.

> The rest of the patch series looks very, very good to me. I totally agree
> that we do not have to implement the --abort and --continue for now, as
> well as the HEAD-detaching business we're used to from rebase and am.

Thanks for the kind words,
Christian.