On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:56:04AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:42:49PM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote: > > > > It seems that I was implying a lot more than I realized. What I meant > > was that master and empty-branch2 are equivalent for the purposes of > > that test (empty-branch2^ also is a non-empty commit [*1*]), but while > > master is a moving target, empty-branch2 is untouched. > > > for the purposes of the --keep-redundant-commits however, the target is > irrelevant. The only requirement is that we cherry-pick a commit that is > guaranteed to become empty when applied. That we agree on. > We certainly could do that on empty branch2, but theres no advantage > to doing so, The advantage is that I do not have to read the other tests in order to understand what this test does, because contrary to the master branch, they do not modify empty-branch2. > and given that every other test attempts to cherry-pick to master, I > rather like the consistency. We could also consistently not use the master branch. > > However, I just notice that empty-branch2 is also the root commit, so > > maybe this will not work after all. But that should be easy to fix. > > It is easy to fix, given your clarified description above, its just that IMO, > its not broken. Well, I don't mind too badly if this doesn't go may way. But I hope that I managed at least to explain my point. -- 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