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 D330F1F461 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 02:47:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726328AbfH1Crk (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:47:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51800 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726207AbfH1Crk (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:47:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629A37C538; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:47:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=1bKtUvnwy70CUCM5t1hsDfh7DFY=; b=KLpe2G 4d6Lye1CPW1SGzQCc2hDq63dP1O98dMGlSUziTa6wAxasqaoBOUQRcAwPKeffIqs V/9vxaPLvww2pbtDj6OaCwTZ1ZnzhnRyi32rErS+5tJIclKnM6Z6qGKziz33QaGl cEAW1QiVvGTXSl0Y4oWUMr0w4DQ7Uhxg/fIdg= 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=kkcQmV+pzX+39Li7jD+hZlLjFRY11EoB ysLUPXHuwujwvEroYBYdd1svXJmRu+wBOmctWbiPfh/K/rSt5/2UZ/k7yTj7fKKb BijsvKAOdmGdRitv1pstmIjNwsqSXLu8c3qlbZWrlJz9P8XIq21v/f1/HEr2sWfv ECUxOkQ4dr0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4971A7C537; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:47:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1327C535; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:47:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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 19:47:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:56:57 -0700") 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: 30ACCDF8-C93E-11E9-B8C6-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > 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? Addendum. "rebase" (especially with "-i") is fundamentally different from "cherry-pick" and it makes tons of sense to suggest "--skip" in the former. "rebase -i" is a tool to take a messy work in progress and polish it by reordering, discarding and combining commits. "cherry-pick" is to take a finished work already in one integration track, and transplant to another, often an older maintenance track, and there is no place for "this conflict is too much to resolve so let's drop it".