On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 01:18:09AM +0200, Fabian Ruch wrote: > The options passed to `do_pick` determine whether the picked commit > will be rewritten or not. If the commit gets rewritten, because the > user requested to edit the commit message for instance, let > `pick_one` merely apply the changes introduced by the commit and do > not commit the resulting tree yet. If the commit is replayed as is, > leave it to `pick_one` to recreate the commit (possibly by > fast-forwarding the head). This makes it easier to combine git-commit > options like `--edit` and `--amend` in `do_pick` because > git-cherry-pick does not support `--amend`. > > In the case of `--edit`, do not `exit_with_patch` but assign > `rewrite` to pick the changes with `-n`. If the pick conflicts, no > commit is created which we would have to amend when continuing the > rebase. To complete the pick after the conflicts are resolved the > user just resumes with `git rebase --continue`. Hmm. So does this mean the user will actually see a different state during such a conflict? E.g., if I have instructions like: pick A squash B squash C and there is a conflict picking C, then what state do I see? Right now I see a commit with the A+B squash prepared. But your description sounds to me like we would avoid the squash for "B", and the user would see a different state. However, I couldn't trigger that behavior in a few experiments. Am I misunderstanding, or is there some case where the user-visible state will be different? -Peff -- 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