Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorga...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> To put it a bit differently, I share with you that picking merges >>> should be deliberate and it is safer to make sure allowing it only >>> when the told us that s/he knows the commit being picked is a merge, >> >> Something like "--[no-]ban-merges" then [*], having "--ban-merges" as >> default? >> >>> but when we started allowing "-m 1" for non-merge commits in the >>> current world where cherry-pick can work on a range, the ship has >>> already sailed. >> >> Except that it could be a different ship, provided we've got >> "--ban-merges". Having "-m 1" as default stops to be an issue, and >> explicit "-m 1" could then imply --no-ban-merges, that could be in turn >> overwritten by explicit "--ban-merges", if necessary. > > The same effect can be had by just reverting "let's allow -m1 for > single-parent commit", can't it? That is a far simpler solution, I > would say.
Those one didn't introduce the issue currently at hand, as we still don't allow merges by default, so why do we need to rewind it? -- Sergey
