Hi Phillip and Junio Apologies in advance if this is a duplicate message -- it appears that my reply never showed up on the public archive at https://lore.kernel.org/git/ for some reason, and I'm unsure if those CC'd received it either. As such, I am resending it. On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx writes: > >>> +Note that this option specifies how to handle a commit that was not initially >>> +empty, but rather became empty due to a previous commit. Commits that were >>> +initially empty will cause the cherry-pick to fail. To force the inclusion of >>> +those commits, use `--allow-empty`. >> >> I found this last paragraph is slightly confusing now --empty=keep >> implies --allow-empty. Maybe we could change the middle sentence to >> say something like >> >> With the exception of `--empty=keep` commits that were initially >> empty will cause the cherry-pick to fail. > > That is certainly easier to read and much less confusing. I agree that this paragraph is slightly confusing. I tried this suggestion on but found it to not sit quite right, I think because the two exceptions (--empty=keep and --allow-empty) were not part of the same sentence, so it felt a little disjointed. How would you feel about the following instead, which aims to be more clear and specific about the behavior? Note that `--empty=drop` and `--empty=stop` only specify how to handle a commit that was not initially empty, but rather became empty due to a previous commit. Commits that were initially empty will still cause the cherry-pick to fail unless one of `--empty=keep` or `--allow-empty` are specified. Thank you both again for your time reviewing this! -- Thank you, Brian Lyles
