On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:45:58AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > So probably we should: > > 1. Pass the empty tree along to merge-resolve. This will take a little > bit of refactoring, but more importantly, it means we will be > passing a tree-ish and not a commit-ish to a merge strategy. Is > that OK? > > 2. Consider lifting the restriction on reverting root commits. If we > can cherry-pick it, we can revert it, so I suspect this would > already work with merge-recursive, but I didn't try. I don't care > too much either way, though; I doubt it's something people would do > a lot. It just seems like an unnecessary restriction. This turned out to be quite easy. git-merge-resolve handles the tree-ish argument just fine. But it's possible other merge helpers might not be so happy. I dunno. The series is: [1/3]: cherry-pick: handle root commits with external strategies [2/3]: revert: allow reverting a root commit [3/3]: t3503: test cherry picking and reverting root commits -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