Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... What do you say to my proposal regarding the splitting of the device > dependent on how we were executed? It seems we can't use a single advice string > in this case, as no matter which we choose there is a use case in which it fails > to make sense. When your cherry-pick got --allow-empty, it should pass --allow-empty to its inner invocation of commit if it is picking an originally empty commit, and this advice will not trigger because commit will happily commit the no-change change. When your cherry-pick got --allow-empty but not --keep-unnecessary-commit, its inner invocation of commit must not pass --allow-empty if it is _not_ picking an originally empty commit. Then the inner commit will fail if it auto resolves to no change, and the user sees the advice. The current advice text is appropriate for this case. When your cherry-pick did not get either of these flags, its inner invocation of commit must not pass --allow-empty. The user sees the advice when the auto resolved result matches HEAD from the commit invoked by cherry-pick. The current advice text is fine for this case, as we say "possibly", not "we definitely know it was due to conflict resolution". Or your cherry-pick may have failed due to a conflict, regardless of the options like --allow-empty or --keep-unnecessary-commit given to it, and the user may have run commit after resolving the conflict. The current advice text is fine for this case, too, as we say "possibly", and it indeed is what just happened. So I do not think you need to change anything with respect to the advice message. Am I missing some other cases? -- 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