Hi Peff,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:15:05PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > > Should this not rather be
> > >
> > > - if (!cmit || get_revision(opts->revs))
> > > - return error("BUG: expected exactly one commit from
> > > walk");
> > > + if (!cmit)
> > > + return error(_("empty commit set passed"));
> > > + if (get_revision(opts->revs))
> > > + return error(_("unexpected extra commit from walk"));
> >
> > Yeah, you're right. I'm not sure how a single rev with no-walk would
> > ever turn up more than one commit, though. So I think we should probably
> > go with:
> >
> > if (!cmit)
> > return error(_("empty commit set passed"));
> > if (get_revision(opts->revs))
> > BUG("unexpected extra commit from walk");
> >
> > And then if we ever see that case, we can decide from there what the
> > right action is (though _probably_ it's just to emit an error like you
> > have above, it might be a sign that our single-pick logic is wrong).
> >
> > I'll re-roll in that direction, and discuss further in the commit
> > message.
>
> After poking at it a bit more, I've convinced myself that this is the
> right thing, as options like "--branches" which expand into multiple
> tips already push us into the other code path.
>
> So here's a re-roll. The first one is identical except for the typo-fix
> in the commit message.
>
> [1/2]: sequencer: handle empty-set cases consistently
> [2/2]: sequencer: don't say BUG on bogus input
>
> sequencer.c | 12 ++++++++----
> t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh | 7 ++++++-
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
ACK,
Dscho
