Ilya Kantor <ilia...@gmail.com> writes: > Somewhy cherry-pick --no-commit does not work well with --continue. > > Let's say I'm copying changes w/o committing and get a conflict: > >> git cherry-pick -n master..feature > error: could not apply 2c11f12... Run work > > Then I fix the conflict, but cherry-pick refuses to go on: > >> git add . >> git cherry-pick --continue > error: your local changes would be overwritten by cherry-pick. > fatal: cherry-pick failed > > It could continue *if* I committed, but I'm --no-commit for a reason, > so I shouldn't have to commit to go on with cherry-pick.
Of course you shouldn't have to, and cherry-pick --continue shouldn't commit either. Once you resolve the conflicts, there is no more things to do for cherry-pick command, so --continue does not make any sense, I would think, when using --no-commit. For that matter, "cherry-pick --no-commit A..B", unless you are absolutely sure A..B consists of only one commit (in which case you should just be saying "cherry-pick --no-commit B" instead), makes no sense, either. So perhaps these are what we should be fixing? I.e. reject range-pick when --no-commit is given, and reject --continue when working in --no-commit mode.
