Re: git cherry-pick --strategy=resolve segfaults if picking a root commit

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:08:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:45:58AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > So probably we should:
> > 
> >   1. Pass the empty tree along to merge-resolve. This will take a little
> >      bit of refactoring, but more importantly, it means we will be
> >      passing a tree-ish and not a commit-ish to a merge strategy. Is
> >      that OK?
> > 
> >   2. Consider lifting the restriction on reverting root commits. If we
> >      can cherry-pick it, we can revert it, so I suspect this would
> >      already work with merge-recursive, but I didn't try. I don't care
> >      too much either way, though; I doubt it's something people would do
> >      a lot. It just seems like an unnecessary restriction.
> 
> This turned out to be quite easy. git-merge-resolve handles the tree-ish
> argument just fine. But it's possible other merge helpers might not be
> so happy. I dunno.
> 
> The series is:
> 
>   [1/3]: cherry-pick: handle root commits with external strategies
>   [2/3]: revert: allow reverting a root commit
>   [3/3]: t3503: test cherry picking and reverting root commits

Junio,

I seem to recall seeing an email from you saying that merge-helpers need
to handle tree-ish arguments, so this is an OK direction to go. But now
I can't seem to find it. Did I dream it?

If that is the case, then I think this series is worth picking up. So I
thought I'd prod you on it (I'm happy to repost, too, if that's easier).

-Peff