From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC44E1F461 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 21:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726616AbfH0V5C (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:57:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64417 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725835AbfH0V5B (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:57:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F16416D9FC; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:56:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=w8awimXey74OL1oAF/E6a2eT5VQ=; b=O88Mgl tTQLSHE3HZhwlYnnSojr7nV/8U16uEW0ujg5E10zwe7w/3XbvnmTbf98svGXOll3 AYDLE38CBbL+9p9SOrTgfuAmUNDdgDnhk/+HOgZr/3lI/Zh8FHD7k0dZQWaReWgq vpiRxf7ThghM6UNozf6s78wiy50e3lCMVVxMM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Ff8D5CcpyVz6p/utdBHJfUN17KCweZe7 EKb4m2MkYFSEEdhvkO1VkfffBV2HmVPpMg6QhOT1GJWPAPn3jgN47cDLwc8v9VSa P41qPugvqlmKj11QR8EEkIvWtDZQZjbdGjNzW9Uoo4SjSR1Xn88N3KwArS2rfUT6 5UTRc78o3gw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459D116D9FB; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A78A916D9FA; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Denton Liu Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] status: mention --skip for revert and cherry-pick References: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:56:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Denton Liu's message of "Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:45:41 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 97A2944E-C915-11E9-A847-46F8B7964D18-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Denton Liu writes: > When reverting or cherry-picking, one of the options we can pass the > sequencer is `--skip`. However, unlike rebasing, `--skip` is not > mentioned as a possible option in the status message. Mention it so that > users are more aware of their options. Is this a good thing, though? Giving up (because you do not have enough time or concentration to finish the cherry-pick or revert in progress) with --abort, and committing to the resolution after spending effort to deal with a conflicted cherry-pick or revert with --continue, are both sensible actions after seeing the command stop due to conflicts. Is "--skip" a recommendable action in the same way? Doesn't a multi-commit series often break if you drop just one in the middle, especially if the series is sensibly structured as a logical progression?