On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > === Current behavior === > > Non-conflict commits Right after Conflict > > revert Edit iff isatty(0) Edit (ignore isatty(0)) > > cherry-pick No edit See above > > Specify --edit Edit (ignore isatty(0)) See above > > Specify --no-edit (*) See above > > > > (*) Before stopping for conflicts, No edit is the behavior. After > > stopping for conflicts, the --no-edit flag is not saved so see the > > first two rows. > > > > === Expected behavior === > > > > Non-conflict commits Right after Conflict > > revert Edit iff isatty(0) Edit (regardless of isatty(0)?) > > cherry-pick No edit Edit (regardless of isatty(0)?) > > Specify --edit Edit (ignore isatty(0)) Edit (ignore isatty(0)) > > Specify --no-edit No edit No edit > > > > The thing I'm unsure on is the !isatty(0) handling for revert & > > cherry-pick right after a conflict when neither --edit nor --no-edit > > are specified. > > I read the intention behind existing "edit if isatty" as "this is an > operation the human reader deserves a chance to explain what was > done and why by default". For example, I read the first entry in > your table as: Even if there is no conflict, there should be a > convincing explanation when you revert. On the other hand, if you > are cherry-picking without any conflict, the intention should be > clear enough in the original commit log message, which ought to be > written why applying that change is a good idea, so it would make > sense not to invoke editor in that case. > > If an operation deserves a chance to be explained even in a cleanly > auto resolved case, it does deserve the chance even more if hand > resolution was required---in addition to the original "what and > why", the resolution of the conflict is an additional reason why the > human should be given a chance to explain. > > But if it is an automated process, there is no reason to fail the > operation merely because the process is run unattended. So my > recommendation for "regardless of isatty" part is "do not force > editing". The same is true for a human user who declines the chance > to explain him/herself with an explicit "--no-edit". Thanks. Renato: potential fix over here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.988.git.git.1616742969145.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u. Could you give it a try?
