Re: [PATCH 2/5] Add git-sequencer documentation

Hi,

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote:

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

quoted

+-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.

quoted

quoted

+--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.

quoted

quoted

+	--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