Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Yes, and I do not think it is an implementation detail.
> I am not opposed to an "internal use" of the cherry-pick machinery to
> implement a corner case of "rebase -i":
> ...
> In step 4., you would be internally using the cherry-pick machinery
> to implement the step of "rebase -i" sequence.  That is what I would
> call an implementation detail.  And that is cherry-picking to the
> root.  It transplants something that used to depend on the entire
> history behind it ...

Just to add another example, I do not think I would be opposed to
the case where you "edit" the root commit in the above example,
i.e. keeping the "Hello world" as the root commit, but modifying its
tree and/or log message. The internal impemenation detail has to
first chery-pick that existing commit on top of a void state before
it gives the user a chance to tweak the tree and commit the result
with a modified log message.  Just like "commit --amend" can be used
to amend the root commit, it logically makes sense the recreated
commit records nothing as its parent if done when HEAD is not valid
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