From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Git commit --patch (again) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:08:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20110509220806.GC3719@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1304748001-17982-1-git-send-email-conrad.irwin@gmail.com> <20110509144451.GA11362@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vei47q0i6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: conrad.irwin@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 10 00:08:25 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QJYcn-0007KB-TR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:08:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932273Ab1EIWIJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 18:08:09 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:39567 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932183Ab1EIWII (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 18:08:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 12827 invoked by uid 107); 9 May 2011 22:10:04 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 09 May 2011 18:10:04 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 09 May 2011 18:08:06 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vei47q0i6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:53:05AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I agree with this. I do not foresee myself using "commit -p" ever for this > exact reason. I however didn't see anything wrong in the series and I do > not see any reason to reject it, either. It's just another long rope other > people can use to tangle their neck with ;-). Heh. Maybe your title should be "Git Hangman". :) > > Hmm. Test t7501.8 explicitly tests that this isn't allowed. But the test > > is poorly written, and falsely returns success even with your patch. > > Thanks. Let me see if I can simply amend what I queued already ;-) It's unfortunately not quite as simple as having that test succeed, as it changes state that breaks later tests. I didn't investigate deeply, though. -Peff