Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Am 24.01.24 um 20:46 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Good point! IMO, REBASE_HEAD should have lower precedence than all the
>>> other *_HEADs. It would mean to reorder the entries:
>>>
>>> static const char *const other_head[] = {
>>> "MERGE_HEAD", "CHERRY_PICK_HEAD", "REVERT_HEAD", "REBASE_HEAD"
>>> };
>>>
>>> (and perhaps adjust the error message, too).
>>
>> And probably give a warning saying that we noticed you are rebasing
>> and cherry-picking and we chose to show the --merge based on the
>> relationship between cherry-pick-head and head, ignoring your rebase
>> status, or something.
>
> I don't think that's necessary. When rebase stopped with a merge
> conflict, neither of the other commands can begin their work until the
> conflicted state is removed. That should be a concious act, just like
> when thereafter one of these other commands is used and leads to a
> conflict. At least I would certainly not need a reminder.
OK.
