On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 23:13, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Ãvar ArnfjÃrà Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I've read this over, haven't run it, but I really like the idea. It >>> sucks that you have to save away the commit sha1 somwhere after a >>> failed cherry-pick to use it again. It should just behave like `git >>> rebase --continue`, which this implements. >> >> I don't understand. ÂWhat do you think rebase does to be able to continue? >> Doesn't it have to save the commit object name away somewhere? > > I took it to mean that the behavior after a conflict should be 'add' > followed by 'cherry-pick --continue', not 'add' followed by 'commit'. > Not that I disagree, but that's a lot more work, see my reply to Ãvar > just before this. I just meant that when git-rebase conflicts it remembers the author information when you do --continue without you having to do `git commit -c sha1-that-failed` or something. This patch adds a similar thing to cherry-pick, which I like. It's a minor UI issue that's annoyed me in the past. -- 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