Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Since revert and cherry-pick share the same sequencer code, they should > both accept the same command-line options. Merge the > `__git_cherry_pick_inprogress_options` and > `__git_revert_inprogress_options` variables together into > `__git_cherry_pick_revert_inprogress_options` so that the options aren't > unnecessarily duplicated twice. Hmm, will the claim hold true in the future? I do agree that they will share continue, quit and abort (and skip) forever, but I am not bold enough to declare that they will never have some unique option in addition to the common one only because they "share the same sequencer" machinery. It is trivial to add a "if we are in revert, do this" to the code, and it already works that way. __git_sequencer_inprogress_common_options="--continue --quit --abort" __git_cherry_pick_inprogress_options=$__git_sequencer_inprogress_common_options __git_revert_inprogress_options=$__git_sequencer_inprogress_common_options may be a bit more future-proof way, perhaps? The places that use the variable(s) already correctly distinguish cherry-pick and revert, so even though the above and your version equally "unify" the set of common options and allow adding a new common option (i.e. skip) with equal ease, yours makes giving unique option to one but not to the other more difficult.
