Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] Introduce CHERRY_HEAD

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 23:59, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I wonder if cherry-pick shouldn't also write MERGE_MSG or similar so
that gets taken care of automatically?  That would also allow options
like -x and -m to work better.

Hm, that probably is a good idea.

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt b/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt
index 749d68a..e8db99b 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt

@@ -16,6 +16,25 @@ Given one or more existing commits, apply the change each one

 introduces, recording a new commit for each.  This requires your
 working tree to be clean (no modifications from the HEAD commit).

+When it is not obvious how to apply a change, the following
+happens:
+
+1. The current branch and `HEAD` pointer stay at the last commit
+   successfully made.
+2. The `CHERRY_HEAD` ref is set to point at the commit that
+   introduced the change that is difficult to apply.
+3. Paths in which the change applied cleanly are updated both
+   in the index file and in your working tree.
+4. For conflicting paths, the index file records up to three
+   versions, as described in the "TRUE MERGE" section of
+   linkgit:git-merge[1].  The working tree files will include
+   a description of the conflict bracketed by the usual
+   conflict markers `<<<<<<<` and `>>>>>>>`.

What happened to the `=======`?  I thought you were copying and pasting
from the said section.

I think this is clear enough, else you would need to mention the
'|||||||' and conflict_marker_size too.

Bert