From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: phillip.wood123@gmail.com
Cc: "Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>,
"Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Phillip Wood" <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add-patch: edit the hunk again
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:02:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqbk0e5pff.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2ad1f7b1-714c-4d6e-89a6-fd65271222b9@gmail.com> (phillip's message of "Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:07:08 +0100")
phillip.wood123@gmail.com writes:
> Thanks for the re-roll. I'm still not convinced that changing this
> without keeping an easy way to get the current behavior is a good
> idea.
>
> This is not very obvious to the user, it would be much better to give
> them the choice when we prompt them about editing the hunk
> again. We've been giving the user the original hunk for the last six
> and a half years so I think it's a bit late to unilaterally change
> that now.
I almost never use the (e)dit in "add -p", but after trying it and
deliberately screwing up the edit, I tend to agree with you. It is
very easy to lose what the original change was, what you wanted it
to say after the edit in the end state, and how the patch for the
current state should look like, and being able to easily start over
(and more importantly, knowing that I'd get the version that has
none of my screw-ups) was the only thing that convinced me that I
might in the future try to use the (e)dit mode again when I find an
applicable situation.
Thanks for review.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-23 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-15 11:38 [PATCH] add-patch: edit the hunk again Rubén Justo
2024-09-16 13:33 ` Phillip Wood
2024-09-16 17:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-09-16 22:09 ` Rubén Justo
2024-09-18 10:06 ` phillip.wood123
2024-09-18 17:46 ` Rubén Justo
2024-09-18 17:51 ` [PATCH v2] " Rubén Justo
2024-09-23 9:07 ` phillip.wood123
2024-09-23 16:02 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2024-09-24 22:54 ` Rubén Justo
2024-10-01 10:02 ` Phillip Wood
2024-10-02 16:36 ` Rubén Justo
2024-09-28 14:30 ` [PATCH v3] " Rubén Justo
2024-10-01 10:03 ` Phillip Wood
2024-10-01 17:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-10-02 17:34 ` Rubén Justo
2024-10-02 17:27 ` Rubén Justo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqbk0e5pff.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
--cc=rjusto@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).