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 18:25:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20121007222502.GA3263@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <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> <20121007214958.GC1743@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vehl9q5uk.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 Mon Oct 08 00:25:18 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 1TKzHg-0004JF-UH for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:25:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751154Ab2JGWZH (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:25:07 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:44033 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102Ab2JGWZF (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:25:05 -0400 Received: (qmail 18801 invoked by uid 107); 7 Oct 2012 22:25:37 -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 18:25:37 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:25:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vehl9q5uk.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 03:23:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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? > > I'd rather want to see a patch that _only_ documents the current > behaviour to unconfuse people first. I definitely do not want any > patch that changes the command line parsing or any other behaviour > change with problems that have to take time from reviewers to point > them out mixed in it. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I want to see a re-roll of only the documentation bits of Conrad's patch, for which I had only minor comments. The code part had major problems. :) -Peff