Hi Phillip On 2019-06-10 10:40 UTC Phillip Wood <phillip.wood...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Rohit > > On 10/06/2019 06:28, Rohit Ashiwal wrote: >> Hey Phillip >> >> On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:03:02 +0100 Phillip Wood <phillip.wood...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rohit >> [...] >> I think it is more about suggesting what are all the possibilities >> you can try and not about intelligently suggesting what you should >> do. > > Previously all the suggested options were viable, --skip is not > applicable if the user has committed a conflict resolution. The idea of > the advice is to help the user, suggesting options that wont work is not > going to help them.
Now that I know what I should do, I'll make the change and submit a better patch. >> ofc, we can not use `revert --<option>` while cherry-picking.( > > As I suggested in patch 1 we should tailor the error message to the command. Yes, I'll tailor the messages based on which command was ran. >> we should not be able to do so in ideal conditions, but the world >> does not work as we think it should). Still we are suggesting so >> here. > > Yes because you have the power to easily make that change. It is normal > to try and improve the code base when we make related changes. :) >> Also, I think it is more reasonable to make "this" a part of patch >> which will cover "tailored" advice messages which is also a topic >> of discussion as I described here[1]. > > That might make sense, but it is a pretty self contained change as part > of this patch. Yes, this patch is the place where all changes should be made. Thanks Rohit
