On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:08:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > 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 Junio, I seem to recall seeing an email from you saying that merge-helpers need to handle tree-ish arguments, so this is an OK direction to go. But now I can't seem to find it. Did I dream it? If that is the case, then I think this series is worth picking up. So I thought I'd prod you on it (I'm happy to repost, too, if that's easier). -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