From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Michael Montalbo <mmontalbo@gmail.com>
Cc: shrimech <eddinen77@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add: remove interactive mode
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 09:11:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqh5l8sg2y.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC2QwmL2HSzJEb5hPbukNdqBzvMd=6ObiDrty+6T9tZ0otmogg@mail.gmail.com> (Michael Montalbo's message of "Wed, 5 Aug 2026 00:15:34 -0700")
Michael Montalbo <mmontalbo@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 10:50 PM shrimech <eddinen77@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Remove the --interactive (-i) option from git add and drop
>> its associated interactive-mode documentation.
>>
>> The patch mode (--patch/-p) remains available for interactively
>> selecting hunks to stage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: shrimech <eddinen77@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think this commit message is meaningful according to
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches[1]:
>
> The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
>
> . explains the problem the change tries to solve, i.e. what is wrong
> with the current code without the change.
>
> . justifies the way the change solves the problem, i.e. why the
> result with the change is better.
>
> . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.
>
> . records the resolution of design or viability concerns raised by the
> community during the review, if any, ensuring the historical record
> explains why the chosen approach was accepted over alternatives.
>
> [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches
More importantly, a breaking change that will negatively affect
existing users' workflows needs to be accompanied by a much better
justification than a typical opt-in addition.
I could send a patch to remove 'git add' altogether, claiming that
"the diff feature remains available so 'git diff' will still work",
and yet that is not a sane justification for removing 'git add'.
Justifying the removal of '-i' based on the availability of '-p' is
just as bogus as that.
Of course, none of "I have not heard of this feature", "I have not
used this feature", "I no longer use this feature", and "I do not
like this feature" is good enough. "I have not met anyone who uses
this feature" used to be viable twenty years ago, but not anymore.
Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-05 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-05 5:46 [PATCH] add: remove interactive mode shrimech
2026-08-05 7:15 ` Michael Montalbo
2026-08-05 16:11 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
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=xmqqh5l8sg2y.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=eddinen77@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmontalbo@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