Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I.e. you seemingly have no interest in using "git commit" to produce
> empty commits, but are just trying to cherry-pick something and it's
> failing because it (presumably, or am I missing something) cherry picks
> an existing commit content ends up not changing anything.
>
> I.e. you'd like to make the logic 37f7a85793 ("Teach commit about
> CHERRY_PICK_HEAD", 2011-02-19) added a message for the default.
>
> So let's talk about that use case, and for those of us less familiar
> with this explain why it is that this needs to still be optional at
> all. I.e. aren't we just exposing an implementation detail here where
> cherry-pick uses the commit machinery? Should we maybe just always pass
> --allow-empty on cherry-pick, if not why not?
>
> I can think of some reasons, but the above is a hint that both this
> patch + the current documentation which talks about "foreign SCM
> scripts" have drifted very far from what this is actually being used
> for, so let's update that.
The command line "--allowAnything" in general is meant to be an
escape hatch for unusual situations, and if a workflow requires
constant use of that escape hatch, there is something wrong either
in the workflow or in the tool used in the workflow, and it is what
we should first see if we can fix, I would think, before making it
easy to constantly use the escape hatch.
I didn't look at the external reference you looked at but it sounds
like your review comment is taking the topic in the right direction.
Thanks for digging for the backstory.
