From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git 1.8.0.rc0.18.gf84667d trouble with "git commit -p file" Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:49:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20121007214958.GC1743@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vsj9ssgcp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20121005225758.GA1202@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8vbkru8o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20121006131200.GB11712@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vvcenqx39.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20121006183026.GA3644@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121006190753.GA5648@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vr4paovjq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Conrad Irwin , Frans Klaver , git@vger.kernel.org, "Horst H. von Brand" To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 07 23:50:25 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TKyjw-0000co-Lw for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:50:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752149Ab2JGVuE (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:50:04 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:43995 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751680Ab2JGVuB (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:50:01 -0400 Received: (qmail 18385 invoked by uid 107); 7 Oct 2012 21:50:33 -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; Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:50:33 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:49:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr4paovjq.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 Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 01:51:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Yes. The more we talk about it, the more turned off I am by the idea. > > Above I posed my questions as "what _should_ we do when...". And I still > > think we _should_ default to --only with interactive, if we can find > > sane semantics. But until we can find them, it obviously does not make > > sense to enable it, and the whole discussion is stalled. And we must > > come up with an interim solution that is the least bad. > > > > Which is obviously one of: > > > > 1. Keep defaulting to "--include", as that is what we have been doing. > > > > 2. Forbid the cases where it would matter (i.e., when the index and > > HEAD differ). > > > > The former is more convenient, but the latter is safer against > > future breakage. I'm OK either way, but option (1) clearly needs a > > documentation update. > > Yeah, I agree with the reasoning. This is an unessential feature > that is with the problem for a long time, so let's go the route #1 > first before we do anything else. OK. I think Conrad's patch takes us most of the way there. I had a few minor comments, but I think another round should do it. Conrad? -Peff