Hi Brian
On 16/03/2024 05:20, Brian Lyles wrote:
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.
That looks fine to me
Best Wishes
Phillip
