Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Clarify what git-rebase's "--preserve-merges" does

From: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:53:35 +0300

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Nope. It seems like cherry-pick takes care of that:
>> ...
>> What do I miss?
>
> The fact that cherry-pick did not flag it as a potential conflict
> situation where a manual verification is required
> (the cherry-pick process can be fooled by textual similarity and
> either add the same thing twice or fail to add one thing that is
> needed).

Well, it was not required in the simple case I tested, and cherry-pick
did the right thing. I suspect it will do the right thing (flag a
conflict) where manual verification is required. A test-case
demonstrating the problem you have in mind, maybe?

Anyway, how is it different to cherry-pick merge commit compared to any
other commit? I mean, provided we cherry-pick other commits, we already
accepted all the possible negative consequences of cherry-picking. How
cherry-picking merge commits make this worse?

I.e., do you think we have a show-stopper, or just that there are ways
to handle merge commits event better than simple "cherry-pick -m1"? The
latter is probably true, but simple cherry-pick still looks much better
than what we have now, no?

-- Sergey.