I think my previous reply was rejected so let me try again (I apologize if you get a duplicate): On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:12 AM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hmm. I'm a little confused after reading your patch below. Why does (res > == 0) change to (res == 0 && opts->no_commit)? Wouldn't we still want to > update our CHERRY_PICK_HEAD even if "res == 0 && !opts->no_commit"? My _guess_ (haven't sat down to study the code that much) is that if "res == 0 && !opts->no_commit", then commit will wrap up in a normal fashion and then there's actually no need for this file to be updated. You can see that the same thing is done when reverting (preexisting code), a few lines after where the patch is applied (if I remember correctly). > > Even still, this patch as it is seems to fail a number of tests. You can > run the tests yourself by running "make && make test", and there is more > information about that in t/README. Will actually look at that just so that I can have a better idea of what the _current_ behavior is expected from using the flag. Looking forward to more comments > > Thanks, > Taylor Thank you!
