From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFEB8387349 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770053193; cv=none; b=bEW+oFnltTiPCFv9TxZaYApFQFFr9A92mdpel3ME8DKuo/7XvkmvEP1s0/gn1yfd4pWg4OISWcIhQ3s0mTmmPD3u17Tu0f/S1zw0M7KVa0m+ceojfuS8VPTYjGNBcokm/nGQlHBr+PFbRrV/iyG40a2rpGFNG1jN1Wg4Q3UgDKg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770053193; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XWZfMT7iVOd3YchlEporNCXhu5+KUb9hJnGq0P3ysOQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rTa7Y379TALHPYxhNvICD6oiNVaEvGJicEbhYUX50ghQzzg8J4EuwsGHanTiPjejxNtLU1zTq5rxbRvOo0E9MPvvga47madXWqICdV4IACHY6wvs1977A3YeME3IHr1Lel6DqRVuYZm4PCbnk3MFRxCCWURAE95Y8pFR0kYAenE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=IF4iA4tO; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Wy1LuU85; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="IF4iA4tO"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Wy1LuU85" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA2C1D0013B; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 12:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:26:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1770053190; x=1770139590; bh=1Vgq96u9T+ uPoZd7h45F6ENSOBNiALh61anMea/dq6M=; b=IF4iA4tOAulCrnLyqEzGmIj2PH INUHV384PdZLnQiu4J59hoARWUmbvbR0uY0xxZszdvMBkNMNgjAuhPGP8a/OsJqg Ih2znvEouNeWaHGNT3AZxHpyXn7XZCqA0MsKMb740okbLXv/rH0sOvfs8B88XHqx M+Hi8XVBBGzrfqY+0TxHRuRr6URWEdSq4C2Rmm0uE6+N3GBOT5xESJH9wnGQgVvV zWElZp5KFGOZGwTGR6lWNc4xuX4D1MZOjM3gLXT6DMutlYdn9ydTyw41xBEat8oh tzYh6FdJszOZDqin2jzCR/BEpQ7RPVD95rPU3tKRYQRpOhZsQ2flMlbeQI9g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1770053190; x=1770139590; bh=1Vgq96u9T+uPoZd7h45F6ENSOBNiALh61an Mea/dq6M=; b=Wy1LuU85EiS+xHiHUbxiV03kfNNOyLG9/5nnz/NHY44MqsVFv1R fm1q40e0vsdPcr20POlEq7jGCW12oGo0H3qkBvRoGWz+UJKbU8T1AWvvPbkWxQY5 MZURZDuwYs0ZLmgUeOM0Eglsy5zWC6FnDjH1pKZ2v4GWYCStHXjC+Gvy7d0egk8N Vbu9eQ2mpFU6/yGkkdtdhoZWGMuDLafnnzjqA4rApzI3tSPwnDpFRZGSNZYt/nCm dEqVdieGVbSCvzzJqNYW36Ljaq01TUTBWukgPX5aWN1zLXPq07WgdgjMeicXyl+g 1W1XveMUQWPn5vwBohPvH8vteyNf9N/SHFA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddujeekvdefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepledpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheprggsrhgrhhgrmhgruggvkhhunhhlvgehtdesghhmrg hilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhr tghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhoug duvdefsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshiivgguvghrrdguvghvsehgmhgr ihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhishhtihgrnhdrtghouhguvghrsehgmhgrih hlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvghrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfhgr shhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsggvnhdrkhhnohgslhgvsehgmhgrihhlrd gtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 12:26:29 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Samuel Abraham Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Steinhardt , Phillip Wood , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Christian Couder , Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Ben Knoble Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Allow reworking with a file after deciding on all its hunks In-Reply-To: (Samuel Abraham's message of "Mon, 2 Feb 2026 12:14:16 +0100") References: <9b21cb901ab14397af94b8ed2d09da1a9a6d862b.1769522219.git.abrahamadekunle50@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2026 09:26:28 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Samuel Abraham writes: >> I am not sure if I would like the end result or rather prefer your >> "all-or-none", so please do not take this as "here is a better way >> to implement it" suggestion. >> >> But you should be able to keep the current semantics, if you wanted >> to, even if you apply the chosen hunks when you switch files, like >> the original code has been doing forever since it was written. You >> know which hunks you applied, so after applying before moving on to >> the next file, you can drop these hunks from the list of hunks to be >> decided for application. When the user comes back to the current >> file to decide on other hunks, you know that the already used hunks >> would get in the way, so why keep them? > > Yes thank you so much for suggesting this approach. Not so fast. I explicitly said I am *NOT* suggesting anything. And thinking about it more, I do not think it makes any sense to do anything other than "all-or-none" when the command is working in your new "you can move to different files before you decide on all hunks in the current file" mode (which I think we agreed to make it an optional mode). Why? After deciding yes, no, no among 5 hunks in the first file (leaving the hunks #4 and #5 undecided), you jump to the second file, do something there, and imagine that you come back. If we drop the alrady applied hunks like the suggestion, which I did not make ;-), we'd then give you four hunks (as hunk #1 has been already applied), and even though you have already decided not to use hunks #2 and #3, you *can* revisit them with "J" or "K", change your mind and use them if you wanted to. But it is too late for the hunk #1. It looks utterly inconsistent if you cannot change your mind on hunk #1 but can on hunks #2 and #3 and it reduces the usefulness of "you do not have to decide right now and visit other files before you do so" mode. Thanks.