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 142881F461 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726960AbfFTUJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:09:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:56968 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726114AbfFTUJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:09:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79951679F0; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:09:47 -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=S/SNJErbbWPGkEgx5S9U8zgx8DA=; b=ZEZxM6 OCz23NP83ddvBR0w5P+nk+c85UiPOWqSSmidbjWYqIAGJMWOjOjVNWrGhIP98l9E 6irtqXiYP36uqZFFYlJ7lTOumMP7oSbxJ2Aj2ofsdX48YCtSJs1HpGJCmRvdUPCt avKn0HN3TM6tRrOsOv0FQlG4uzESVV0JWptQk= 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=oiWEO5yRJOgkaqDCI9nEYXmFZtKV1ADf nYB+g9mnYlNtxjfbvVIp+A9LuBYFuO75A/gHE7mHPIq8dEARfaW+jWM0zfGXZ0Xm KA9dtJ01y2Il8snpKZHPJDvh4AaJd+OT2Vhzneqz1FdY7D0XYxOiNsRlL/YJEHUJ ppajvZA16W4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE00B1679EF; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:09:47 -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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33F321679EE; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:09:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Rohit Ashiwal , git@vger.kernel.org, newren@gmail.com, t.gummerer@gmail.com, martin.agren@gmail.com, jrnieder@gmail.com Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH v5 4/5] cherry-pick/revert: add --skip option References: <20190608191958.4593-1-rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> <20190618170650.22721-1-rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> <20190618170650.22721-5-rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> <76359a86-0eb1-dd87-c36f-7bd2df8b0ae5@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:09:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: <76359a86-0eb1-dd87-c36f-7bd2df8b0ae5@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:57:44 +0100") 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: 5A175DC0-9397-11E9-95E5-72EEE64BB12D-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: >> This one, and the in_progress_advice emitted from the patch 1/5, are >> both bad in that they make calls to advise() without guarding it >> with an advice.* configuration variable. > > I'm not sure we have one for cherry-pick/revert/rebase. At the moment > they print advice advice for a failed pick unconditionally... Yes, 1/5 does not introduce a new problem; it just makes it worse by allowing the misdesign survive another update. The one introduced by 4/5 is genuinely new. > ... Maybe that > should be checking advice.resolveConflict though. I think that is a sensible one, rather than inventing a new knob.