On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:57:10AM -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > What I find myself wanting to type is just: > > git cherry-pick A..B > > But there is the whole problem of how to deal with any conflict that > appears during the process. Indeed this is a problem we also have in StGIT, when pushing multiple patches after rebasing. Currently we have to deal with the conflict and forge a new command-line to finish the job, which is quite awkward. In this respect, the --continue/--skip/--abort set of flags that git-rebase has are really useful. In fact, I have plans to deal with such behaviours with stgit transactions: in this case, we have the need of user interaction in the middle of a transaction, and the rebase flags mentionned above are just a way for the user of continuing or aborting the transaction. However, currently I'm not sure that git-rebase would be very robust if the user would mess with HEAD before issuing one of these commands. Maybe git would also benefit from a generic transaction mechanism of some sort, so "cherry-pick A..B" and possibly others can behave in a consistent way with rebase ? It could even be more sensible to implement transactions at the git level rather than at the stgit one... Best regards, -- Yann. - 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
