Merge or Cherry-Pick?

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:21:44AM -0500, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM, John Tapsell <johnflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> But how would a similar work flow except there are multiple fixes
> > >
> > > Does that make sense?
> >
> > Yes. Great. IMHO that type of documentation is what is needed in
> > techbase.
>
> in fact, that's exactly the type that does *not* belong there. there is
> enough generic git documentation out there, and bloating techbase by
> duplicating it all won't make it simpler to use. the right way is
> stating the desired goals, mentioning a few key phrases ("interactive
> rebase" in this case) and linking to some external source.

I very much disagree with this.
We need the basic recipes there.

With short statements I then start searching around in the web, find some 
blogs, some man pages, mess around, and in the end just take a local diff, 
get a fresh clone because everything is messed up, and apply the local diff 
in one step.
At least that's the experience I had when trying to merge with conflicts and 
short remarks like "do a interactive rebase" or something like that, which 
lead me into an editor window which showed strange things where I didn't 
understand what I should do and when I did something things just got worse.

Alex