On 03/24/2012 04:03 PM, Andrew Wong wrote: > On 12-03-19 5:00 PM, Andrew Wong wrote: >> On 03/19/2012 12:51 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Isn't the real solution *not* to create the CHERRY_PICK_HEAD in the >>> sequencer when it is not know if it is needed, instead of the >>> current code >>> which seems to create first and then selectively try to unlink() it? >>> >> Though if the additional flag in "cherry-pick" and additional option in >> sequencer could be useful elsewhere, I could do it that way too. > I looked into adding a "no-state" flag in 'cherry-pick' to not create > the CHERRY_PICK_HEAD, but 'commit' actually has several dependencies > on CHERRY_PICK_HEAD, such as recording reflog message, > 'prepare-commit-msg' hook, and formatting a user message. So if we > want to continue to pursue this path, we'd have to preserve those > behaviors in 'commit' as well. It's probably not a good idea to make > all these changes in 'cherry-pick' and 'commit' just to avoid a > simple cleanup in 'rebase -i'. So I still prefer the patch I submitted > earlier. Can we look into queuing this patch? Or does anyone have any thoughts on this? -- 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