On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 8:50 AM Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Justin Donnelly [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I hope this is against protocol/etiquette, but after some initial
feedback from Junio, I haven't gotten any more. I wasn't sure if
nobody had seen the patch, or if there just wasn't any interest.

It probably is a bit of both.  I personally did not see much point
in adding the long "conflicts" marker to the shell prompt (I did
worry about possible complaints by end users triggered by seeing
them suddenly without asking, which was why I commented on the
patch) and I was waiting for interested folks to speak out.

Speaking for myself, I was too busy elsewhere. But now that I looked over
the patch, I think it is fine. My only feedback is that it would be wise
to only add a single test case because that is plenty enough (after all,
it validates the `ls-files --unmerged` call and not the `cherry-pick`
code) and it is unnecessary to waste the electricity on additional tests
cases (even if somebody else foots the bill, it would do well for all of
us to start being more mindful about energy consumption).

That makes sense. I'll get started on a re-roll to just have a single
test that focuses specifically on the conflict indicator.

Ciao,
Dscho

Thanks,
Justin