Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] git-cherry-pick: Add test to validate new options

From: Clemens Buchacher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:38:52 +0200

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:56:04AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:42:49PM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote:
> > 
> > It seems that I was implying a lot more than I realized. What I meant
> > was that master and empty-branch2 are equivalent for the purposes of
> > that test (empty-branch2^ also is a non-empty commit [*1*]), but while
> > master is a moving target, empty-branch2 is untouched. 
> > 
> for the purposes of the --keep-redundant-commits however, the target is
> irrelevant.  The only requirement is that we cherry-pick a commit that is
> guaranteed to become empty when applied.

That we agree on.

> We certainly could do that on empty branch2, but theres no advantage
> to doing so,

The advantage is that I do not have to read the other tests in order to
understand what this test does, because contrary to the master branch,
they do not modify empty-branch2.

> and given that every other test attempts to cherry-pick to master, I
> rather like the consistency.

We could also consistently not use the master branch.

> > However, I just notice that empty-branch2 is also the root commit, so
> > maybe this will not work after all. But that should be easy to fix.
>
> It is easy to fix, given your clarified description above, its just that IMO,
> its not broken.

Well, I don't mind too badly if this doesn't go may way. But I hope that
I managed at least to explain my point.