From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git cherry-pick --continue? Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:01:09 -0800 Message-ID: <7v63644uoq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20100210210419.GA7728@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20100210212408.GB7728@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , Junio C Hamano , Git List To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 10 23:01:33 2010 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 1NfKcj-00030k-MK for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:01:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756150Ab0BJWBZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:01:25 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:37121 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756124Ab0BJWBY (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:01:24 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222F898919; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:01:19 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=IAUxDKYNVYH/6ln8kzLZgEtTAiY=; b=QJ3dIg KsmcGqHarz+gc2luDWQ8qjZdY8TxOEIfA894DJteo92kQtd+JLg7tLtnfA5ua5DI h8S9lWZU93lCFguwALzF9m5lT208myp1uISI+rrh6u1b/ErPNG4VVL3h6HAUls7o fR4BYaEOdYxbLvvwoHEGw2c3JXjUocWpzRmc8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=s/AfTglHfsaG8OhqA0OeXf4HL9cBQ9lQ 4/iM3wQhtVtQI+oiLQ4fsQHiAiH9nf8otlVLUqYymdgFK0GdOFOXocgSe9CzhogP S3eyOapi1DoS30S1shM0GbCnZwrbnZIVT74boq3DDX7B7d2uwdRpreg1kGZbIHmY VL4l/jwQhEc= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AEA9890D; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07AAD98904; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:01:10 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20100210212408.GB7728@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed\, 10 Feb 2010 16\:24\:08 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CF564054-168F-11DF-A59D-6AF7ED7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > Hmm. I was thinking "am" was the odd man out, but really there are only > two sequencer commands that I noted: rebase and am. So you could perhaps > argue that rebase should also learn "--resolved". Or am I forgetting > one? I don't think you are forgetting anything, except that "am" came first with "resolved". The focus of the verb is "I declare I am finished marking the resolution". Taking that declaration and continuing is ultimately "am"'s decision. IOW the user is not telling "am" to continue---the difference is subtle, but it was a conscious design decision. "rebase --continue" came later, and I think its focus is placed more heavily on the instruction side ("Please continue"), and not on the declaration side ("I now have marked the resolution for all paths"). This causes people sometimes to want to see it "continue", even when then haven't marked the resolved paths as resolved. I personally think the focus is misplaced. But that is just a philosophical difference ;-).