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

Phillip Wood [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.