Hi, On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Avoid this potential problem by removing the sequencer state if we're > > committing or resetting the final pick in a sequence. > > The use-case story before this conclusion only mentioned "commit" > that concluded the multi-step cherry-pick/revert, and never talked > about "reset", which made my eyebrows to rise. > > As a part of "reset", we have already been removing CHERRY_PICK_HEAD > and REVERT_HEAD, so "git reset" during a conflicted "cherry-pick" > for example is already destructive and the user can no longer get > back to continuing the cherry-pick anyway after running it, even > without this patch. So from that point of view, it does make sense > to remove the other sequencer states at the same time. Do you mean to say that a `git reset` during `git cherry-pick <range>` aborts it? In my experience, this is not the case. The advice printed out after a conflict even recommends to run `git reset` (followed by `git cherry-pick --continue`, in lieu of the `git cherry-pick --skip` we have yet to implement). So I don't think it is correct to say that `git reset` does not let the user get back to continuing a cherry-pick... Ciao, Dscho
