From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cherry-pick --continue: remember options
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:01:58 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqimwm9hh5.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903132344350.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:45:41 +0100 (STD)")
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>> Remember --allow-empty, --allow-empty-message and
>> --keep-redundant-commits when cherry-pick stops for a conflict
>> resolution.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>
> This whole patch series makes sense to me.
Yes, the changes look sensible (provided if it is the sensible goal
to make --continue use the same set of options, that is).
> And it is especially nice that you make it easy to verify that there is a
> bug in the first place, by separating the concern of demonstrating it from
> the concern to fix it.
For a multi-patch series, breaking out the verification test out of
the fixing patch is OK. It is a different story for a simple change
that could be made in a single step to artificially separate the
test into a separate step. An early "test_expect_failure" would not
stop the test when applied to a different codebase as a standalone
"does the breakage exist in this unrelated version?" even if the
"test only" patch might appear easier to apply (as opposed to
applying only the t/ part of the patch that expects success and
seeing it actually fail).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-14 5:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-13 18:26 [PATCH 1/3] sequencer: break some long lines Phillip Wood
2019-03-13 18:26 ` [PATCH 2/3] cherry-pick: demonstrate option amnesia Phillip Wood
2019-03-13 18:26 ` [PATCH 3/3] cherry-pick --continue: remember options Phillip Wood
2019-03-13 22:45 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-14 5:01 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-03-14 14:09 ` separating regression test patches from fixes, was " Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-14 14:30 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-03-18 0:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-21 16:43 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-18 8:07 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqimwm9hh5.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).