On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:08:15AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Automatic cherry-pick failed.
> After resolving the conflicts,
> mark the corrected paths with 'git add <paths>' or 'git rm <paths>'
> and commit the result with:
>
> git commit -c 8a7cdf
>
> Is there any reason not to suggest ‘git commit’ without the -c? This
> way, the template message includes a helpful Conflicts: string, too.
You cc'd me, which I guess means you git-blame'd the line in question.
But you really need to parent-blame about five steps back to find
f52463a (cherry-pick: Suggest a better method to retain authorship,
2007-03-04) from Dscho, which introduced the "commit -c" suggestion.
So the answer to your question is that "-c" will retain the proper
authorship of the cherry-picked commit. We could instead:
1. Say only "git commit" when author == committer.
2. When author and committer do not match, explicitly say "git commit
--author=...". This retains the "conflicts" information from the
template.
Those are both easy. Alternatively, we could actually make it stash the
original authorship information somewhere (in addition to the commit
message template) and then pull it out automatically. That's harder, but
probably what the user would want (and it behaves more like a rebase
conflict).
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html