> I could have fixed the conflicts and committed manually. I believe we can detect any case where you ran `git commit`. I just know that when you run git commit in that case the commit message is _not_ auto populated from the pending commit. So git seems to be aware if you did any commit that "replaces" the pending commit. So I think that addresses most of the cases you mentioned. As long as the first `git commit` after pausing from conflicts is non-empty, we can say the pending commit is not "skipped". > I could have reset to a different commit. I think it would be okay to emit the message if you hard reset and continue. On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 2:00 AM Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 25.07.25 um 17:20 schrieb Cameron Steffen: > >> But only if we can positively tell the reason why there is no change > >> relative to the parent commit _is_ because the commit we are > >> currently picking has already been applied, that is. > > > > I thought we merely would need to see that there are no staged changes > > to be committed, and there is a currently-picking commit that will now > > be skipped? I don't need to know whether the commit was already > > applied. I just want to know that the commit in the rebase plan is not > > being committed. > > How would rebase know what I did while I had control? I could have fixed > the conflicts and committed manually. I could have reset to a different > commit. I could have split the change into two commits. I could have > removed the changes. I could have made additional changes. Possibilities > are unlimited. Saying something like "commit 123abc is now empty" or "is > skipped" would be incorrect most of the time in my workflow. > > -- Hannes >
