On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:15:05PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > Should this not rather be
> >
> > - if (!cmit || get_revision(opts->revs))
> > - return error("BUG: expected exactly one commit from
> > walk");
> > + if (!cmit)
> > + return error(_("empty commit set passed"));
> > + if (get_revision(opts->revs))
> > + return error(_("unexpected extra commit from walk"));
>
> Yeah, you're right. I'm not sure how a single rev with no-walk would
> ever turn up more than one commit, though. So I think we should probably
> go with:
>
> if (!cmit)
> return error(_("empty commit set passed"));
> if (get_revision(opts->revs))
> BUG("unexpected extra commit from walk");
>
> And then if we ever see that case, we can decide from there what the
> right action is (though _probably_ it's just to emit an error like you
> have above, it might be a sign that our single-pick logic is wrong).
>
> I'll re-roll in that direction, and discuss further in the commit
> message.
After poking at it a bit more, I've convinced myself that this is the
right thing, as options like "--branches" which expand into multiple
tips already push us into the other code path.
So here's a re-roll. The first one is identical except for the typo-fix
in the commit message.
[1/2]: sequencer: handle empty-set cases consistently
[2/2]: sequencer: don't say BUG on bogus input
sequencer.c | 12 ++++++++----
t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh | 7 ++++++-
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
-Peff
