Am 7/18/2012 8:20, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>>  pick_one () {
>>         ff=--ff
>> +
>>         case "$1" in -n) sha1=$2; ff= ;; *) sha1=$1 ;; esac
>>         case "$force_rebase" in '') ;; ?*) ff= ;; esac
>>         output git rev-parse --verify $sha1 || die "Invalid commit name: 
>> $sha1"
>> +
>> +       if is_empty_commit "$sha1"
>> +       then
>> +               empty_args="--allow-empty"
>> +       fi
>> +
>>         test -d "$rewritten" &&
>>                 pick_one_preserving_merges "$@" && return
>> -       output git cherry-pick $ff "$@"
>> +       output git cherry-pick $empty_args $ff "$@"
> 
> The is_empty_commit check seems to mean that if $sha1 is an "empty"
> commit, we pass the --allow-empty option to cherry-pick. If it's not
> empty, we don't. The word "allow" in "allow-empty" suggests that even
> if the commit is not empty, cherry-pick would not mind. So, can we
> always pass "allow-empty" to cherry-pick (i.e. even if the commit to
> pick is not empty)?

I don't think so. If the commit is not empty, but all its changes are
already in HEAD, then it will become "empty" when cherry-picked to HEAD.
In such a case, we usually do not want to record an empty commit, but stop
rebase to give to user a chance to deal with the situation.

-- Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to