I think that "Conflicts:" should be kept. It has some values. It means
that cherry-pick/merge is not clean, so human or machine try to
resolve conflicts. It may fail. Also Conflicts say: "be careful, maybe
you do not want to cherry-pick this commit" (or... maybe you want this
commit if destination branch is close to branch with this cherry-pick
[so maybe no/or less number of conflicts]).
Also I propose to use "git cherry-pick -x"
when do cherry-pick to non-main branches (like master-1.10, etc.) See
description:
" -x
When recording the commit, append a line that says "(cherry
picked from commit ...)" to the original commit message in order to
indicate which commit this change was cherry-picked from.
This is done only for cherry picks without conflicts. Do not use this
option
if you are cherry-picking from your private branch because
the information is useless to the recipient. If on the other hand you
are
cherry-picking between two publicly visible branches (e.g.
backporting a fix to a maintenance branch for an older release from a
development branch), adding this information can be useful."
On 6 October 2014 21:30, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:03 PM, Bálint Réczey <balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I usually leave the "Conflicts: ..." in the commit message after
>> resolving conflicts to document that the merge was not automatic.
>> Should I continue doings so you prefer removing this from the commit message?
>> Guy raised the issue in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/4438 ,
>> but I think the question deserves more attention than being just a
>> valid code-review comment.
>
> Back when we were using SVN, the convention Gerald (and some others) used was to have backport checking messages be of the form
>
> Copied over XXX from the trunk:
>
> [commit message from the trunk]
>
> or
>
>
> Copied over XXX from the trunk with manual intervention:
>
> [commit message from the trunk]
>
> or something such as that.
>
> Is there any advantage to listing the files that required manual intervention?
>
> Is there any advantage to saying "with manual intervention" rather than "Conflicts:"?
>
> Is there any advantage to mentioning the manual intervention if the only issues were white space issues?
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
--
Pozdrawiam / Best regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michał Łabędzki, Software Engineer
Tieto Corporation
Product Development Services
http://www.tieto.com / http://www.tieto.pl
---
ASCII: Michal Labedzki
location: Swobodna 1 Street, 50-088 Wrocław, Poland
room: 5.01 (desk next to 5.08)
---
Please note: The information contained in this message may be legally
privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any unauthorised use, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank You.
---
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
---
Tieto Poland spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością z siedzibą w
Szczecinie, ul. Malczewskiego 26. Zarejestrowana w Sądzie Rejonowym
Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego
Rejestru Sądowego pod numerem 0000124858. NIP: 8542085557. REGON:
812023656. Kapitał zakładowy: 4 271500 PLN
