[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: git add --interactive patch improvement for split hunks
From:       Jeff King <peff () peff ! net>
Date:       2021-06-30 17:06:32
Message-ID: YNykmFejFG8cEjue () coredump ! intra ! peff ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> > I'm not sure. I think the topic would have graduated if either you had
> > just applied the squash and merged it down, or if the original author
> > had checked back in over the intervening year to say "hey, what happened
> > to my patch" (either by reading "what's cooking" or manually).
> >
> > I suspect drive-by contributors might not realize they need to do the
> > latter in some cases, but I wouldn't have counted 2014-era Ævar in that
> > boat. So I dunno.
> 
> Or maybe the moral of the story that it's a net addition of complexity
> to git-add--interactive.perl. If I didn't care enough to remember or
> notice the issue again maybe it wasn't all that important to begin with.
> 
> Likewise when it got ejected nobody else seemed to notice/care enough to
> say "hey I liked that feature" & to pick it up.

Yeah, that's probably a fair interpretation, too. :)

> I'd entirely forgotten I wrote that. Now that I'm reminded of it I don't
> care enough myself to rebase it, test it again, and especially not to
> figure out if/how it's going to interact with the new C implementation /
> add and adjust a test for the two.
> 
> But maybe someone else will, it would be neat if someone has more of an
> itch from the lack of that feature & wants to pick it up.

I can probably save you a little time/mental energy here: the C version
already does what your patch was trying to do. Once we switch to it as
the default, your patch would be obsolete anyway. :)

-Peff
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]