Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:
This makes it possible to pass a range of commits like A..B
to "git cherry-pick" and to "git revert" to process many
commits instead of just one.
quoted hunk
@@ -545,6 +542,40 @@ static int revert_or_cherry_pick(int argc, const char **argv)
if (read_cache() < 0)
die("git %s: failed to read the index", me);
+ dotdot = strstr(commit_name, "..");
+ if (dotdot) {
+ struct rev_info revs;
+ const char *argv[4];
+ int argc = 0;
+
+ argv[argc++] = NULL;
+ if (action != REVERT)
+ argv[argc++] = "--reverse";
+ argv[argc++] = commit_name;
+ argv[argc++] = NULL;
+
+ init_revisions(&revs, NULL);
The goal of the series is a worthy one, but I would imagine people would
want to run these while on "maint":
git cherry-pick master~2..master
git cherry-pick master^ master
or even
git cherry-pick -2 master
How about enumerating the commits with an equivalent of
git rev-list --no-walk "$@"
as an alternative implementation?
The current behaviour would fall out just as a natural special case
because
git rev-list --no-walk $commit == $commit
Hmm?
On Saturday 29 May 2010 17:27:01 Junio C Hamano wrote:
Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
This makes it possible to pass a range of commits like A..B
to "git cherry-pick" and to "git revert" to process many
commits instead of just one.
@@ -545,6 +542,40 @@ static int revert_or_cherry_pick(int argc, const
char **argv) if (read_cache() < 0)
die("git %s: failed to read the index", me);
+ dotdot = strstr(commit_name, "..");
+ if (dotdot) {
+ struct rev_info revs;
+ const char *argv[4];
+ int argc = 0;
+
+ argv[argc++] = NULL;
+ if (action != REVERT)
+ argv[argc++] = "--reverse";
+ argv[argc++] = commit_name;
+ argv[argc++] = NULL;
+
+ init_revisions(&revs, NULL);
The goal of the series is a worthy one, but I would imagine people would
want to run these while on "maint":
git cherry-pick master~2..master
git cherry-pick master^ master
or even
git cherry-pick -2 master
How about enumerating the commits with an equivalent of
git rev-list --no-walk "$@"
as an alternative implementation?
I agree that it would be nice, but I am not sure it would allow using "-2
master" as arguments because "--no-walk" seems to take over "-2":
$ git rev-list --no-walk -2 master
81fa024cd8e336ba257f13fe7724b95baacfa3ad
$
The current behaviour would fall out just as a natural special case
because
git rev-list --no-walk $commit == $commit
Hmm?
Yes, I will provide an updated patch series using the equivalent of '--no-walk
"$@"' but arguments like "-2 master" will not work.
Thanks,
Christian.