Hi Rohit On 10/06/2019 14:33, Rohit Ashiwal wrote: > Hi Phillip > > On 2019-06-10 10:40 UTC Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Rohit >> >> On 10/06/2019 06:28, Rohit Ashiwal wrote: >>> Hey Phillip >>> >>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:03:02 +0100 Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Rohit >>> [...] >>> I think it is more about suggesting what are all the possibilities >>> you can try and not about intelligently suggesting what you should >>> do. >> >> Previously all the suggested options were viable, --skip is not >> applicable if the user has committed a conflict resolution. The idea of >> the advice is to help the user, suggesting options that wont work is not >> going to help them. > > Now that I know what I should do, I'll make the change and submit a > better patch. That's great, thanks Phillip >>> ofc, we can not use `revert --<option>` while cherry-picking.( >> >> As I suggested in patch 1 we should tailor the error message to the command. > > Yes, I'll tailor the messages based on which command was ran. > >>> we should not be able to do so in ideal conditions, but the world >>> does not work as we think it should). Still we are suggesting so >>> here. >> >> Yes because you have the power to easily make that change. It is normal >> to try and improve the code base when we make related changes. > > :) > >>> Also, I think it is more reasonable to make "this" a part of patch >>> which will cover "tailored" advice messages which is also a topic >>> of discussion as I described here[1]. >> >> That might make sense, but it is a pretty self contained change as part >> of this patch. > > Yes, this patch is the place where all changes should be made. > > Thanks > Rohit >
