From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B04203E3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758413AbcGZUap (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:30:45 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:49498 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1758406AbcGZUao (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:30:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 10564 invoked by uid 102); 26 Jul 2016 20:30:44 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:30:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 10986 invoked by uid 107); 26 Jul 2016 20:31:09 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:31:09 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:30:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:30:41 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Stefan Beller Cc: Stephen Morton , "git@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: git cherry-pick conflict error message is deceptive when cherry-picking multiple commits Message-ID: <20160726203041.GA4675@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:18:55PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > Would it be possible to expand the hint message to tell users to run > > 'git cherry-pick --continue' > > Instead of expanding I'd go for replacing? > > I'd say the user is tempted for 2 choices, > a) aborting (for various reasons) > b) fix and continue. Yeah, I'd agree with this. I think that advice comes from a time when you could only cherry-pick a single commit. These days you can do several in a single run, and that's why "git cherry-pick --continue" was invented. So I think we would need to make sure that the "cherry-pick --continue" advice applies in both cases (and that we do not need to give different advice depending on whether we are in a single or multiple cherry-pick). I did some basic tests and it _seems_ to work to use --continue in either case. Probably due to 093a309 (revert: allow cherry-pick --continue to commit before resuming, 2011-12-10), but I didn't dig. -Peff