From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clemens Buchacher Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] git-cherry-pick: Add test to validate new options Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:38:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20120417213851.GA20082@ecki> References: <1333136922-12872-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1334342707-3326-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1334342707-3326-4-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20120415093933.GB6263@ecki> <20120416161431.GD13366@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <7vvckzws73.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120416165024.GF13366@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20120416214247.GA5606@ecki> <20120417105604.GB11462@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Phil Hord To: Neil Horman X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 17 23:58:47 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SKGQA-0004J3-8K for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:58:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752073Ab2DQV6m (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:58:42 -0400 Received: from bsmtp.bon.at ([213.33.87.14]:48647 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751683Ab2DQV6l (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:58:41 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p5B22CC82.dip.t-dialin.net [91.34.204.130]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD9BCDF88; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:59:18 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120417105604.GB11462@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:56:04AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:42:49PM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote: > > > > It seems that I was implying a lot more than I realized. What I meant > > was that master and empty-branch2 are equivalent for the purposes of > > that test (empty-branch2^ also is a non-empty commit [*1*]), but while > > master is a moving target, empty-branch2 is untouched. > > > for the purposes of the --keep-redundant-commits however, the target is > irrelevant. The only requirement is that we cherry-pick a commit that is > guaranteed to become empty when applied. That we agree on. > We certainly could do that on empty branch2, but theres no advantage > to doing so, The advantage is that I do not have to read the other tests in order to understand what this test does, because contrary to the master branch, they do not modify empty-branch2. > and given that every other test attempts to cherry-pick to master, I > rather like the consistency. We could also consistently not use the master branch. > > However, I just notice that empty-branch2 is also the root commit, so > > maybe this will not work after all. But that should be easy to fix. > > It is easy to fix, given your clarified description above, its just that IMO, > its not broken. Well, I don't mind too badly if this doesn't go may way. But I hope that I managed at least to explain my point.