On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> When a cherry-pick conflicts git advises to use: >> >> Â$ git commit -c <original commit id> >> >> to preserve the original commit message and authorship. Instead, let's >> record the original commit id in CHERRY_PICK_HEAD and advise to use: >> >> Â$ git commit -c CHERRY_PICK_HEAD > > Wouldn't it be more convenient to do "git cherry-pick --continue" > instead of "git commit -c CHERRY_PICK_HEAD"? As mentioned in the part of the commit message you trimmed away: "In the next commit, we teach git to handle the '-c CHERRY_PICK_HEAD' part". Now, you may ask, why use "git commit" after resolving the conflict (a la merge) instead of "git cherry-pick --continue" (a la rebase). I addressed this in the previous thread, see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/166884 j. -- 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