Hi, On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > +-B:: > > > +--batch:: > > > + Run in batch mode. If unexpected user intervention is needed > > > + (e.g. a conflict or the need to run an editor), 'git-sequencer' fails. > > > > Does it abort, or leave a dirty tree? > > It aborts. > Perhaps I should make this clear in the docs. No, just leave it as is. The users can always ask you on the mailing list. So my comment was totally unfounded. > > > +--onto=<base>:: > > > + Checkout given commit or branch before sequencing. > > > + If you provide a branch, sequencer will make the provided > > > + changes on the branch, i.e. the branch will be changed. > > > > Whoa, does that mean that > > > > $ git checkout my-private-branch > > $ git sequencer --onto=master > > > > will change _master_? > > Exactly. /me does not like that. I could see a new porcelain doing that, but not the thing that will be called by rebase. > > > + --include-merges;; > > > + Sanity check does not fail if you have merges > > > + between HEAD and <mark>. > > > > It may be a commit, too, right? And why does it make sense to check that > > there are no merges? I mean, it is just as if I did two cherry-picks, the > > second with -n, and then commit --amend it. Can make tons of sense... > > I think I mean something different. With "merges" I am talking about > commits having more than one parent. Yes, I read "merges" the same way. My comment still stands. > Thanks for your reply and your other notes. (The ones I didn't comment > are just ACKed.) The ones that _I_ did not comment on I do not necessarily agree with, but then, I do not have the time to argue about them. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
