From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git cherry-pick --strategy=resolve segfaults if picking a root commit Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 06:27:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20110516102744.GA23286@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110512104558.GA22108@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110512110855.GA5240@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Sebastian Schuberth , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 16 12:27:56 2011 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 1QLv1n-00019Q-Px for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 16 May 2011 12:27:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754566Ab1EPK1t (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2011 06:27:49 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:46627 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754382Ab1EPK1t (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2011 06:27:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 12884 invoked by uid 107); 16 May 2011 10:29:48 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 16 May 2011 06:29:48 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 16 May 2011 06:27:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110512110855.GA5240@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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