On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 7/18/2012 8:20, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> pick_one () {
>>> ff=--ff
>>> +
>>> case "$1" in -n) sha1=$2; ff= ;; *) sha1=$1 ;; esac
>>> case "$force_rebase" in '') ;; ?*) ff= ;; esac
>>> output git rev-parse --verify $sha1 || die "Invalid commit name: $sha1"
>>> +
>>> + if is_empty_commit "$sha1"
>>> + then
>>> + empty_args="--allow-empty"
>>> + fi
>>> +
>>> test -d "$rewritten" &&
>>> pick_one_preserving_merges "$@" && return
>>> - output git cherry-pick $ff "$@"
>>> + output git cherry-pick $empty_args $ff "$@"
>>
>> The is_empty_commit check seems to mean that if $sha1 is an "empty"
>> commit, we pass the --allow-empty option to cherry-pick. If it's not
>> empty, we don't. The word "allow" in "allow-empty" suggests that even
>> if the commit is not empty, cherry-pick would not mind. So, can we
>> always pass "allow-empty" to cherry-pick (i.e. even if the commit to
>> pick is not empty)?
>
> I don't think so. If the commit is not empty, but all its changes are
> already in HEAD, then it will become "empty" when cherry-picked to HEAD.
> In such a case, we usually do not want to record an empty commit, but stop
> rebase to give to user a chance to deal with the situation.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks!
--
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