Thomas Rast wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> > Thomas Rast Cc'ed as he has been the primary force behind this line
> > of "notes" usability.
> Thanks for pointing this out to me.
> > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> builtin/revert.c | 2 +
> >> sequencer.c | 136
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> sequencer.h | 2 +
> >> t/t3500-cherry.sh | 32 +++++++++++++
> >> 4 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > "git cherry-pick" should help maintaining notes just like amend and
> > rebase, but how should this interact with notes.rewrite.<command>,
> > where the command is capable of doing this without an explicit
> > option once you tell which notes need to be maintained?
> Since we already have the notes.rewrite.<command> convention, it would
> seem the obvious choice to line it up with the others. The main
> bikeshedding opportunity is whether this should be an exception and
> default to false (all other commands default it to true).
> Also: how does this interact with notes.rewriteRef and the corresponding
> env vars? Why?
> How does it interact with 'cherry-pick -n' if this is done in sequence,
> effectively squashing several commits (this use-case is actually
> suggested by the manpage), if multiple source commits had notes? Should
> it respect notes.rewriteMode (and by default concatenate)? (I don't
> know if the sequencer state is expressive enough already to carry this
> in a meaningful way across cherry-pick commands.)
Feel free to implement that. I'm just interested in 'git cherry-pick' being
usable for 'git rebase' purposes.
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