On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:56:57PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu <liu.den...@gmail.com> writes: > > > When reverting or cherry-picking, one of the options we can pass the > > sequencer is `--skip`. However, unlike rebasing, `--skip` is not > > mentioned as a possible option in the status message. Mention it so that > > users are more aware of their options. > > Is this a good thing, though? > > Giving up (because you do not have enough time or concentration to > finish the cherry-pick or revert in progress) with --abort, and > committing to the resolution after spending effort to deal with a > conflicted cherry-pick or revert with --continue, are both sensible > actions after seeing the command stop due to conflicts. Is "--skip" > a recommendable action in the same way? Doesn't a multi-commit > series often break if you drop just one in the middle, especially > if the series is sensibly structured as a logical progression?
I think that the same argument for or against recommending `--skip` could be made for rebases as well. However, in the rebase case, `--skip` is recommended whenever `--abort` is recommended. With this patch, I made it so that revert and cherry-pick would have `--skip` and `--abort` paired as well. I'm pretty impartial about making this change but I would suggest if we choose not to pursue this then we should also drop the `--skip` recommendation from rebase as well.
