From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>,
Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Clarify what git-rebase's "--preserve-merges" does
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:53:35 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87619ezwio.fsf@javad.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpp7nn5l3.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:03:52 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Sergey Organov <s.organov@javad.com> writes:
>
>> Nope. It seems like cherry-pick takes care of that:
>> ...
>> What do I miss?
>
> The fact that cherry-pick did not flag it as a potential conflict
> situation where a manual verification is required
> (the cherry-pick process can be fooled by textual similarity and
> either add the same thing twice or fail to add one thing that is
> needed).
Well, it was not required in the simple case I tested, and cherry-pick
did the right thing. I suspect it will do the right thing (flag a
conflict) where manual verification is required. A test-case
demonstrating the problem you have in mind, maybe?
Anyway, how is it different to cherry-pick merge commit compared to any
other commit? I mean, provided we cherry-pick other commits, we already
accepted all the possible negative consequences of cherry-picking. How
cherry-picking merge commits make this worse?
I.e., do you think we have a show-stopper, or just that there are ways
to handle merge commits event better than simple "cherry-pick -m1"? The
latter is probably true, but simple cherry-pick still looks much better
than what we have now, no?
-- Sergey.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-02 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-26 13:04 [PATCH] docs: Clarify what git-rebase's "--preserve-merges" does Sebastian Schuberth
2015-03-26 18:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-26 20:28 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2015-03-26 20:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-26 21:17 ` Sergey Organov
2015-03-26 21:41 ` Johannes Sixt
2015-03-31 9:13 ` Sergey Organov
2015-03-31 16:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-31 17:03 ` Sergey Organov
2015-03-31 17:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-01 11:27 ` Sergey Organov
2015-04-01 17:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-02 9:53 ` Sergey Organov [this message]
2015-03-30 9:29 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2015-03-30 17:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-30 19:42 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2015-03-30 19:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-30 20:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-30 21:09 ` Sebastian Schuberth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87619ezwio.fsf@javad.com \
--to=sorganov@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=sschuberth@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).