Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 24.02.2015 19:29: >> Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>>> Hmm, wouldn't it introduce a grave regression for users who >>>> explicitly ask to clean crufty messages up (by setting their own >>>> commit.cleanup configuration) if you unconditionally force >>>> "--cleanup=verbatim" here? >>>> >>> >>> That's what I meant by possible side-effects below. >>> ... >>> But git cherry-pick without conflict should no re-cleanup the commit >>> message either, should it? >> >> Hmm, but if it does not, wouldn't that countermand the wish of the >> user who explicitly asked to clean crufty messages up by setting >> their own commit.cleanup configuration? > > Note that "verbatim" is not the default - we cleanup commits even > without being asked to. And this makes sense for "git commit", of course. I am fine with the result of the updated code if the user does not have anything in the config and uses the "default". Not touching in "cherry-pick" would be more desirable than cleaning. We are in agreement for that obvious case. But your response is sidestepping my question, isn't it? What does your change do to the user who wants that the clean-up to always happen and expresses that desire by setting commit.cleanup=strip in the config? Doesn't the internal invocation of "commit --cleanup=verbatim" that is unconditional override it? -- 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