Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] commit/reset: try to clean up sequencer state

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Avoid this potential problem by removing the sequencer state if we're
> > committing or resetting the final pick in a sequence.
>
> The use-case story before this conclusion only mentioned "commit"
> that concluded the multi-step cherry-pick/revert, and never talked
> about "reset", which made my eyebrows to rise.
>
> As a part of "reset", we have already been removing CHERRY_PICK_HEAD
> and REVERT_HEAD, so "git reset" during a conflicted "cherry-pick"
> for example is already destructive and the user can no longer get
> back to continuing the cherry-pick anyway after running it, even
> without this patch.  So from that point of view, it does make sense
> to remove the other sequencer states at the same time.

Do you mean to say that a `git reset` during `git cherry-pick <range>`
aborts it?

In my experience, this is not the case. The advice printed out after a
conflict even recommends to run `git reset` (followed by `git cherry-pick
--continue`, in lieu of the `git cherry-pick --skip` we have yet to
implement).

So I don't think it is correct to say that `git reset` does not let the
user get back to continuing a cherry-pick...

Ciao,
Dscho