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=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 7A19C1FF7F for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932795AbcLGUEb (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:04:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54587 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932568AbcLGUE3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:04:29 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40285561C; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:04:28 -0500 (EST) 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=m4Pnne70OzhYNsOCR2NqSqDg17Y=; b=WeWgkn oUMxDV8y7N8sCKE/viNQrUQ89W8FIAt6OskptzK80M14snrjYUn4Atcimqxoxr6y tPgOujTLFvJclyK2T3b1lUsizt/tGjikkVvIOhzhgF8rGD/Ji3eT551bWPRE5KGD Hxf7Th76jP3GN/y+fumQtmgGGpDO+XdmpsYtc= 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=QUjWzmsjelceO0kaSiFL6UVGLCeirvdv 0ltVNf9LrhFDzABypVbTCoCWPdmbVKmXl3etwdAujiLTKJFNG1+9nwm+qsrIAOgp bPFJLpdCWblyxOZB0AqyjwtsmE7MBV10jsbETciBHC53mD3O2akgcApgkHA1cJ2D a379fRWe0HU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA305561B; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:04:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 574865561A; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:04:28 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stephan Beyer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Subject: Re: BUG: "cherry-pick A..B || git reset --hard OTHER" References: <6facca6e-622a-ea8f-89d8-a18b7faee3cc@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:04:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: <6facca6e-622a-ea8f-89d8-a18b7faee3cc@gmx.net> (Stephan Beyer's message of "Wed, 7 Dec 2016 19:36:17 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5BEE70B0-BCB8-11E6-A1B3-B2917B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stephan Beyer writes: > [1] By the way: git cherry-pick --quit, git rebase --forget ... > different wording for the same thing makes things unintuitive. It is not too late to STOP "--forget" from getting added to "rebase" and give it a better name. Having said that, I have a feeling that these options do not have to exist; isn't their presence just a symptom that the "--abort" for the command misbehaves? Isn't the reason why there is no need for "am --quit" because its "--abort" behaves more sensibly?