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 E550F1F454 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725794AbfKHF2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:28:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:61743 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725372AbfKHF2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:28:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AD59C062; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:28:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=iiyYJLAw6iS52bgVqQHk21z9N00=; b=FYAzDo bEs49mErey4ejM++PLEt9RfaVZAAZmW3yqVx/zSY1CEaLDxrresr9+dsLi2+PJLy 0FT8jdl7VQdmq8F9qUOrzoWd1R6u0BJGl//Sv3pWp+vBjdLZp6cRvrkDGOtJMUVR ALgLCRQGxEGLOVhAVDFapDZC7DbYPd/PePumc= 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=Y5jyOrt4LOu2uVqa7tY40nIAD2sA0q6q y0tzJZ5PbV6lsfcs4Zsg+BY9Z3MO3hIWlbnN/y1059q+lvBmaSoQu9getQ72u9bb KKGlUillnsyxx0t/fK3HDGHVMFna6n0rqYzhc89BWSSPcEtXdInlwiJ9E3LP1/BW vyZIL2ZhAGI= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD879C061; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:28:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D9CA9C05D; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:28:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Rohit Ashiwal Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] commit: give correct advice for empty commit during a rebase References: <0d168b4a75c65e786f4b14f5da723957c32fa390.1571787022.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <9d550cd9-08a2-eee5-7d7f-63678285accc@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:28:48 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Phillip Wood's message of "Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:01:19 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A55D4276-01E8-11EA-8E5E-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: >>> I don't this patch can distinguish between an empty cherry-pick >>> performed by the user while a rebase is in progress and an empty pick >>> performed by rebase as both create CHERRY_PICK_HEAD while >>> .git/rebase-merge exists. It seems to assume that CHERRY_PICK_HEAD was >>> created by rebase and prints advise based on that which may or may not >>> be the correct. I think we could distinguish the two by checking if >>> CHERRY_PICK_HEAD matches .git/rebase-merge/stopped-sha or REBASE_HEAD. >> >> I guess we could, but then, I would rather worry about that in the next >> cycle. In this cycle, I would rather fix the common case, which is that >> a `git rebase -i` fails and tells me to `git cherry-pick --skip` instead >> of `git rebase --skip`. >> >> And even if I performed a `git cherry-pick` during a `git rebase` and >> the result would be an empty commit, I'd rather be told to `git rebase >> --skip` to continue... >> >> But if you feel strongly that this should be fixed differently, I'll >> gladly leave it to you ;-) > > I'm happy to wait until the next cycle once we've decided what to do > about CHERRY_PICK_HEAD during rebases. So, is that agreed between the two? Should I eject js/advise-rebase-skip topic out of my tree and wait for the decision wrt CHERRY_PICK_HEAD? Thanks.