Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Pretty much what it says on the tin.
>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com>
>>> Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt | 3 +++
>>> builtin/revert.c | 2 ++
>>> sequencer.c | 6 ++++++
>>> sequencer.h | 1 +
>>> t/t3508-cherry-pick-many-commits.sh | 13 +++++++++++++
>>> 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt
>>> index c205d23..fccd936 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt
>>> @@ -129,6 +129,9 @@ effect to your index in a row.
>>> redundant commits are ignored. This option overrides that behavior
>>> creates an empty commit object. Implies `--allow-empty`.
>>> + Instead of failing, skip commits that are or become empty.
>> Not quite sure. Is this "instead of recording an empty commit,"
>> (which may or may not fail depending on the allow-empty settings)?
> We are explaining --skip-empty, not --allow-empty.
Exactly. That is why I found the "Instead of failing" questionable.
It is very easy to read the above as "commits that are or become
empty usually causes the command to fail, and this is a way to cause
it not to fail.".
It is true that
when A becomes empty, dies. But
cherry-pick --allow-empty A
when A becomes empty, does not fail, but still does create an empty
commit. A large difference with --skip-empty, which applies to use
scenario different from --allow-empty was meant to address, is that
cherry-pick --skip-empty A
when A becomes empty, does not fail and does not create an empty
I think just "Skip commits that are or become empty" without saying
"Instead of failing," is fine, too.
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