Hi, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > >> When we allow mixing "revert" and "pick" instructions in the same >> sheet in the next patch, the following workflow would be perfectly >> valid: >> >> $ git cherry-pick base..latercommit >> [conflict occurs] >> $ edit problematicfile >> $ git add problematicfile >> $ git revert --continue >> [finishes successfully] > > Does "workflow" mean "sequence of commands"? Yes. Clarified wording. >> This is confusing to the operator, because the sequencer is an >> implementation detail hidden behind the 'git cherry-pick' and 'git >> revert' builtins. > > I don't know --- it's not confusing to me. Could you explain further > what harm the current behavior does? E.g., could it cause me to > misunderstand some basic concepts, or could it lead me to run commands > that cause me to scratch my head or lose data? Junio explained this to me in [1]. It's very unnatural for a user to want to execute "git cherry-pick --continue" when the previous command was a "git revert": it probably means that she forgot about the in-progress "git revert". The problem becomes more serious when the sequencer grows more capabilities: a "git merge --continue" to continue a "git am" sounds much more absurd. Ofcourse, we will provide a way to continue any sequencer operation in the future: "git continue" seems to be a good candidate. [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/185355 Thanks. -- Ram -- 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