Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] revert: Introduce --continue to continue the operation

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:46:50 -0500

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> Using the information in ".git/sequencer", it is now possible to
> continue a cherry-pick or continue after a conflict.  To do this, we
> have to parse the information in ".git/sequencer/opts" into the
> replay_opts structure and
[...]

Might be simpler to say:

	Introduce a new "git cherry-pick --continue" command which uses
	the information in ".git/sequencer" to continue a cherry-pick that
	stopped because of a conflict or other error.  It works by dropping
	the first instruction from .git/sequencer/todo and performing the
	remaining cherry-picks listed there, with options (think "-s" and
	"-X") from the initial command listed in .git/sequencer/opts.

	So now you can do:

		$ git cherry-pick -Xpatience foo..bar
		... description conflict in commit moo ...
		$ git cherry-pick --continue
		error: 'cherry-pick' is not possible because you have unmerged files.
		fatal: failed to resume cherry-pick
		$ echo resolved >conflictingfile
		$ git add conflictingfile && git commit
		$ git cherry-pick --continue; # resumes with the commit after "moo"

> During the "git commit" stage, CHERRY_PICK_HEAD will aid by providing
> the commit message from the conflicting "moo" commit.  Note that the
> cherry-pick mechanism has no control at this stage, so the user is
> free to violate anything that was specified during the first
> cherry-pick invocation.  For example, if "-x" was specified during the
> first cherry-pick invocation, the user is free to edit out the message
> during commit time.  One glitch to note is that the "--signoff" option
> specified at cherry-pick invocation time is not reflected in the
> commit message provided by CHERRY_PICK_HEAD; the user must take care
> to add "--signoff" during the "git commit" invocation.

The -s thing doesn't have much to do with this change.  But is it a
bug or not?  If it's not a bug, then this is not so much a glitch to
note as an important feature to ensure people don't sign off on a
conflict resolution without thinking about it.  (I guess I think it's
a bug.  It's hard to decide.)

> --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> @@ -101,4 +101,97 @@ test_expect_success '--reset cleans up sequencer state' '
[...]
> +test_expect_success '--continue complains when no cherry-pick is in progress' '
> +	pristine_detach initial &&
> +	test_must_fail git cherry-pick --continue >actual 2>&1 &&
> +	test_i18ngrep "error" actual

This would start to fail if the message ever changed from "error" to
"fatal", right?  I don't think that's a good thing.

> +test_expect_success '--continue complains when there are unresolved conflicts' '
> +	pristine_detach initial &&
> +	head=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> +	test_must_fail git cherry-pick base..picked &&
> +	test_must_fail git cherry-pick --continue &&
> +	git cherry-pick --reset
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success '--continue continues after conflicts are resolved' '
> +	pristine_detach initial &&
> +	head=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&

How is $head used?

> +	test_must_fail git cherry-pick base..anotherpick &&
> +	echo "c" >foo &&
> +	git add foo &&
> +	git commit &&
> +	git cherry-pick --continue &&
> +	test_path_is_missing .git/sequencer &&
> +	{
> +		git rev-list HEAD |
> +		git diff-tree --root --stdin |
> +		sed "s/[0-9a-f]\{40\}/OBJID/g"
> +	} >actual &&

$_x40 is idiomatic and safer with old seds.

> +test_expect_success '--continue respects opts' '
> +	pristine_detach initial &&
> +	head=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> +	test_must_fail git cherry-pick -s -x base..anotherpick &&
> +	echo "c" >foo &&
> +	git add foo &&
> +	git commit -s &&
> +	git cherry-pick --continue &&
> +	test_path_is_missing .git/sequencer &&
> +	git cat-file commit HEAD >anotherpick_msg &&
> +	git cat-file commit HEAD~1 >picked_msg &&
> +	git cat-file commit HEAD~2 >unrelatedpick_msg &&
> +	git cat-file commit HEAD~3 >initial_msg &&
> +	test_must_fail test_i18ngrep "Signed-off-by:" initial_msg &&

This will break when GETTEXT_POISON is set --- test_i18ngrep
automatically succeeds in that case.

Is "Signed-off-by" meant to be translated anyway?  I would use

	! grep

if testing that.

By the way, that probably should go in a separate test assertion
("-s is not automatically propagated to resolved conflict") to make
it easier to change the behavior later.