Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> To put it a bit differently, I share with you that picking merges >> should be deliberate and it is safer to make sure allowing it only >> when the told us that s/he knows the commit being picked is a merge, > > Something like "--[no-]ban-merges" then [*], having "--ban-merges" as > default? > >> but when we started allowing "-m 1" for non-merge commits in the >> current world where cherry-pick can work on a range, the ship has >> already sailed. > > Except that it could be a different ship, provided we've got > "--ban-merges". Having "-m 1" as default stops to be an issue, and > explicit "-m 1" could then imply --no-ban-merges, that could be in turn > overwritten by explicit "--ban-merges", if necessary. The same effect can be had by just reverting "let's allow -m1 for single-parent commit", can't it? That is a far simpler solution, I would say.
