On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:24:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Sergei Organov wrote: > > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Sergei Organov wrote: > > >> > > >>> Yes, and that's the problem. Why 'git --continue' didn't just skip this > > >>> patch that *already became no-op* after conflict resolution and forced > > >>> me to explicitly use 'git --skip' instead? > > >> > > >> Isn't that obvious? To prevent you from accidentally losing a commit. > > > > > > In case it is not obvious... > > > > > > A rebase conflict resolution that results in emptiness is a > > > rather rare event (especially because rebase drops upfront the > > > identical changes from the set of commits to be replayed), but > > > it does happen. > > > > Funny how 2 of my first 3 commits suffer from this "rather rare event", > > and it was not Friday, 13 ;) > > They are rare events. In your case I guess that subtly different versions > were _actually_ applied (such as white space fixes), That's actually pretty common, in my experience. > which is why such a rare event hit you. I'm using git to track some changes I submitted to a project that's mainly text, and that I only get release tarballs of. On my most recent rebase all my patches got applied, but the text also got re-wrapped and re-indented at the same time. So all but I think one or two of a dozen patches ended up with a conflict resolution and then --skip. Which may not be a case git's really intended for--fair enough. But I've found it's pretty common in my kernel work too. Either I'm rebasing against changes I made myself, or else a maintainer took my changes but fixed up some minor style problems along the way. --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
