On 21.06.24 04:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Haller <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> - Wouldn't it make sense to default to -m1 when no -m option is given?
>
> Given that the current behaviour was chosen to make sure that the
> user is aware that the commit being reverted/cherry-picked is a
> merge and has a chance to choose the right parent (as opposed to
> blindly picking the first parent that happened to be the right one
> by accident), I am not sure if it is prudent to change the
> behaviour.
Hm, in all example scenarios I experimented with, picking the wrong
parent would result in an empty diff, and consequently an error message
like this:
nothing to commit, working tree clean
The previous cherry-pick is now empty, possibly due to conflict
resolution.
If you wish to commit it anyway, use:
git commit --allow-empty
Otherwise, please use 'git cherry-pick --skip'
I'm not sure if this error is easier or harder to understand than the
one you get today when omitting -m, but we could probably improve it by
mentioning the -m option if the cherry-picked commit was a merge.
I'd be interested in example scenarios where both sides of the merge
have non-empty diffs. Won't this only happen for evil merges?
> If I were simplifying this, I would probably
>
> (1) disallow cherry-picking a merge (and suggest redoing the same
> merge, possibly after rebasing the copy of the merged history
> to an appropriate base as needed), and
This seems unnecessarily restrictive to me. Cherry-picking merge commits
using -m1 is useful, it's an important part of our release workflow at
my day job.
> (2) allowing reverting a merge only wrt the first parent,
Interesting, that's what I'm considering doing in lazygit (except for
both revert and cherry-pick), but I kind of didn't expect much support
for that idea. :-)
-Stefan
