Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sequencer: Do not require `allow_empty` for redundant commit options

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:18:56 -0800

Phillip Wood <[email-masked]> writes:

>> This implication of `--allow-empty` therefore seems incorrect: One
>> should be able to keep a commit that becomes empty without also being
>> forced to pick commits that start as empty.
>
> Do you have a practical example of where you want to keep the commits
> that become empty but not the ones that start empty? I agree there is
> a distinction but I think the common case is that the user wants to
> keep both types of empty commit or none. I'm not against giving the
> user the option to keep one or the other if it is useful but I'm wary
> of changing the default.

This may not a new issue introduced by this series, but one thing I
would be worried about the usability of the keep-redundant is that I
know it takes more than one tries of cherry-picking of the same
series, at least to me, to get a series right.  The initial attempt
may make some commit empty and thanks to --keep-redundant they will
be kept, but I'll inevitably find more things I need to tweak and
cherry-pick the resulting series, possibly on a different base.  And
to this second round of cherry-pick, these "were not, but now have
become empty" commits appear empty from the start.